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 19TH JANUARY 2011 / 29TH POUSHA 1932 LA.App..No. 81 of 2006() ----------------------------- LAR.259/2000 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, NORTH PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANTS --------------------------------- 1. RAJU.P.T., S/O.THARIYATH, PAINADATHU HOUSE, AVANACODE KARA. 2. JAMES P.T., S/O.DO. DO. 3. JEGGEY, S/O.THARIYATH, DO.DO. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA. 2. KOCHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SOCIETY, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR. R1 BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.R.BINDU R2 BY ADVS. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SC, KIAS LTD. SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC, COCHIN I AIRPORT LT THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- L.A.A.No. 81 of 2006 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of January, 2011. JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J. Claimants are the appellants. Their property in Nedumbassery Village was acquired at the instance of the 2nd respondent for the purpose of Nedumbassery Airport. The acquisition was pursuant to S.4(1) notification published on 26.12.1985 The total extent of land acquired from their possession is 30 Ares. The Land Acquisition Officer would treat 24.60 Ares as dry land and 5.40 Ares as reclaimed dry land. For the dry land he awarded Rs. 8500/- per Are and for the reclaimed dry land he awarded Rs.3,700/- per Are. One of the contentions raised by the appellants before the Reference Court was that for the reclaimed dry land portion he should have been awarded the same value as has been awarded to the dry land. L.A.A.81/2006 2 This contention did not find favour with the learned Sub Judge as no specific challenge has been raised against the categorization adopted by the appellants. Even if Mr.Chacko, learned counsel for the appellants argued before us that same rate should be awarded for the reclaimed dry land as was awarded to original dry land. We are not inclined to accept the above argument, especially when the categorization made by the Land Acquisition Officer was not specifically challenged. 2. Mr. Chacko would then submit that the court below went wrong in not awarding any enhancement for the structure which existed in the property under acquisition. It is seen that the Land Acquisition Officer awarded a total amount of Rs.3,01,863/- for the structure. The appellants relied on Ext.A3 Commissioner's report. In that report it was found by the Commissioner that the correct value of the building is Rs.6,89,983/- We like the court below are not inclined to rely on Ext.A3. Another argument raised before us by Mr.Chacko was L.A.A.81/2006 3 that the Government valuation relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer was prepared following the P.W.D published schedule of rates. This schedule of rates are not realistic in nature, according to Mr.Chacko. It is seen from the judgment that the above argument was raised before the learned Sub Judge also. The learned Sub Judge, however, did not accept the argument taking the view that P.W.D's schedule of rates is sacrosanct. 3. Having considered the submission addressed before us by Mr.Chacko and Smt.Amminikutty for the Requisitioning Authority, we feel that the court below ought to have awarded enhancement of structure value to the appellant adopting the principle for construction of building in accordance with P.W.D's. published schedule of rates is not practical. We notice that even the P.W.D is tendering out its civil works at 30 - 40% above the published schedule of rates. On the facts and circumstances of this case we are inclined to award to the appellant 30% of the structure value awarded to them by the L.A.A.81/2006 4 Land Acquisition Officer as enhanced compensation. Accordingly, we awarded Rs.19,660/- to the appellants over and above what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The appellants will be entitled for statutory benefits on the enhanced compensation admissible under S.23(2) and 23(1A) and S. 28 of L.A.Act. The appeal is allowed as above. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. Sd/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. Sd/- N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. rka The amount “Rs.19,660/-” occurring in line 2 of page 4 of the judgment dated 19/01/2011 in L.A.A. 81/2006 is corrected and substituted as “Rs.90,558.90/-” vide order dated 03/03/2011 in I.A. 647/2011. Sd/- Registrar (Judicial)