IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 LA.App..No. 1926 of 2008() -------------------------- LAR.62/2001 of SUB COURT, CHERTHALA .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- SADANANDAN, S/O.KESAVAN, KALAPPURAKKAL (FROM KOCHUNIKARTHIL), PALLIPPURAM.P.O, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.V.L.SHENOY SRI.L.JAYAWANTH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), INDUSTRIAL GROWTH CENTRE, CHERTHALA. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSIDC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.D.KRISHNANKUTTY PILLAI FOR R2 SRI.SHEEJO CHACKO FOR R2 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.C.R.SHYAMKUMAR THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A..No. 1926 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The claimant, whose land with residential building, was acquired for the purpose of establishment of the Industrial Growth Centre at Pallippuram, Cherthala, has preferred this appeal challenging the award of the Reference Court turning down his claim for enhancement in the value of the building. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded a total amount of Rs.71,720/- as compensation for the building. Before the Reference Court, the appellant took out a commission. The commissioner recommended for a total amount of Rs.1,10,241/-. The commissioner's recommendations were not accepted by the learned Subordinate Judge for the reason that the commissioner had valued the building as though the construction was in 2005. WPC.No.1926/2008 2 2. Even though the action of the learned Sub Judge in discarding the commission report is assailed and Sri.V.L.Shenoy learned counsel for the appellant addressed appealing submissions before us, we are not able to accept those submissions. However, we find that there is justification for awarding some more compensation to the appellant towards the value of the building. Obviously, the building was valued by the Land Acquisition Authorities through the engineers of the Public Works Department, who have followed the PWD's published schedule of rate. It is a matter of common knowledge that construction of buildings in accordance with the PWD's published schedule of rates is not a realistic proposition. Even the PWD tenders out its civil works at rates 30 to 35% more than its own published schedule of rate. Keeping that principles in mind, we are of the view that the appellant can be awarded Rs.25,250/- more towards the building value. 3. We allow this appeal and award to the appellant Rs.25,250/- more towards the building value. The appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits on the amount which is awarded to him under this judgment. The appeal will stand WPC.No.1926/2008 3 allowed, however without any order as to costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K. HARILAL, JUDGE. dpk