IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2010 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1932 LA.App..No. 504 of 2004(A) ------------------------- LAR.247/1999 of ADDL.SUB COURT, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANTS: ------------------------ 1. CHERUKUNNON KANDOTH KUNHIKANNAN, S/O. KESAVAN, OTTAPPURAYIL HOUSE, P.O. CHALA EAST. 2. LAKSHMI, D/O. KESAVAN, OTTAPPURAYIL HOUSE, P.O. CHALA EAST. 3. BALAN, S/O. KESAVAN, OTTAPPURAYIL HOUSE, P.O. CHALA EAST. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE SRI.GEORGE MATHEW RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT: ---------------------- THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, L.A., KANNUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.T.K.MOHANAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ---------------------------------- L.A.A. No.504 of 2004 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Pius C.Kuriakose,J. The claimants are in appeal. This appeal is confined to the claim for enhanced compensation for the building which existed on the property. The claim is limited to Rs.25,000/-. Total compensation which was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was Rs.1,38,407/-. The claim for enhanced compensation for building was disallowed on the reason that the claimants did not adduce any evidence. Sri.Gracious Kuriakose, learned counsel for appellants submitted that the claimant was not able to take out a commission since he was abruptly dispossessed of the building. We cannot blame the learned Subordinate Judge in not having found that evidence in the case falls short of holding that the compensation awarded for the building is inadequate. But we notice that the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation for building on the basis of valuation by PWD authorities. It is a matter of common knowledge that LAA.504/2004-A 2 construction of buildings in accordance with PWD schedule of rates is not a pragmatic proposition. Even the PWD is tendering out its works at 25-35% above their published rates. Keeping that in mind, we are of the view that we are justified in awarding at least Rs.25,000/- more to the appellants and we do so. Appeal is allowed in full. Rs.25,000/- more is awarded. The appellants will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. But parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb