IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2011 / 22ND POUSHA 1932 LA.App..No. 231 of 2009(C) ------------------------- LAR.56/2000 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/CLAIMANT. --------------------------------- ABU,S/O.ABDUL REHIMAN, PURAKKALOTH, PONNURUNNI. BY ADV. SRI.E.D.GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENS/RESPONDENS. ------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), KOCHI REFINERIES LTD. 2. THE SENIOR INSTALLATION MANAGER, BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R2 SMT.THUSHARA JAMES GOVT. PLEADER (SR). SMT. LATHA T. THANKAPPAN M/S.MENON & PAI(NO MEMO) SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R2 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N. K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.231 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The claimant is in appeal. His claim is confined to additional value for the building which existed on the land under acquisition. In the first instance, the learned Subordinate Judge awarded to him 45% increase on the value awarded by the land Acquisition Officer. This Court in appeal set aside that award and remanded the matter to the Reference Court for a fresh decision. Pursuant to the remand the claimant produced additional documents including valuation report prepared by an expert engineer. The engineer was examined also as a witness. The learned Subordinate Judge, however, was not impressed very much by the engineer's report or the evidence. Finally adopting L. A. A. No.231 of 2009 -2- the principle that construction of buildings as per the PWD schedule of rates is not a realistic proposition, the court below would award 30% increase over the building value which had been awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. 2. We have heard Sri.E.D.George, the learned counsel for the appellant and Smt.Thushara James, the learned counsel for the Requisitioning Authority in extenso. While Sri.George would argue that the court below went wrong in not relying on the expert's report and evidence, Smt.Thushara would argue that what has been awarded is the maximum. Having anxiously considered the rival submissions and having scanned the impugned judgment and having kept in mind the realities of life when it comes to putting up of building, we feel that the learned Subordinate Judge could have awarded a little more than what is actually awarded to the appellant as building value. We, therefore, award to the appellant a further amount of Rs.10,000/- over L. A. A. No.231 of 2009 -3- and above what is awarded by the Reference Court as compensation for the building. It is needless to mention that the appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs in the appeal. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE N. K. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE kns/-