IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2010 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1931 LA.App..No. 42 of 2010 (A) ------------------------------- LAR.101/2004 of SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANT: ----------------------------- PHILIP, S/O.THOMAS,THOMMAMMATTATHIL HOUSE MATTAKKUZHI,VARIKKOLI P.O,COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) SRI.SHAJI SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) KOCHI REFINERIES LTD, TRIPUNITHURA. 2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (PROJECTS) KOCHI REFINERIES LIMITED,AMBALAMUGAL. ADV. M/S MENON & PAI,SC FOR COCHIN REFINERIES SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.42 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The claimant is in appeal and as directed by us, M/s Menon and Pai has taken notice on behalf of the second respondent/Requisitioning Authority, Kochi Refineries Ltd. The appeal is confined to the appellants' claim for enhancement of the compensation payable for the building which existed on the property under acquisition. For the building, the Awarding Officer awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,71,956/-. The Reference Court did not award any enhancement towards compensation for the building. This was L. A. A. No.42 of 2010 -2- obviously due to the reason that the appellant did not take out a commission for revaluing the building. 2. Smt.Thushara James, the learned counsel for the Requisitioning Authority submitted that in the absence of any acceptable legal evidence, the Reference Court is not to be blamed for not having awarded any enhancement towards the value of the building. It is true that acceptable legal evidence was not adduced by the appellant before the Reference Court regarding the correct compensation payable for the building that existed on the property under acquisition. But, we notice that the appellant was awarded Rs.3,71,956/- for the building by the L.A. Authority on the basis of the valuation, prepared on the basis of P.W.D L. A. A. No.42 of 2010 -3- schedule of rates. It is a matter of common knowledge that construction of buildings in accordance with P.W.D schedule of rates is not a pragmatic proposition. Even the PWD is tendering out their civil works at 30% to 35% over their published schedule of rates. 3. In this appeal, we notice that the appellant's claim is only for 20% more over the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. We feel that notwithstanding the objection of the Requisitioning Authority, 20% enhancement can be awarded. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and in modification of the impugned judgment and decree award a sum of Rs.74,391/- as additional compensation towards value of the building. 4. Appeal is allowed as above. It is needless L. A. A. No.42 of 2010 -4- to mention that for the amount awarded by us, the appellant will be entitled for statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Parties will suffer their costs in the appeal. The decree copy will be issued to the appellant only upon satisfaction that the entire balance court fee is remitted. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-