IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2009 / 31ST BHADRA 1931 LA.App..No. 1045 of 2009(A) -------------------------- LAR.36/2006 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): 1ST CLAIMANT -------------------------- SMT. CYNTIA ROY, W/O. LATE ROY LEENE THYCAUDM VADAKKETHAMARAPARAMBIL FORT KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.R.PADMARAJ SRI.N.P.SETHU RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS & CLAIMANTS 2 & 3 ---------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LA) KOCHI REFINARIES LTD., VYTTILA THRIPPOONITHURA. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KINFRA, KINFRA HOUSE ANNEXE, ELANKON GARDENS, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695010. 3. BANK OF BARODA, ERNAKULAM MAIN BRANCH M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 4. C.P.THANKAPPAN, WSHB FLAT.NO.7, PTP NAGAR, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. G.S.REGHUNATH(SC KINFRA) SR. GOVT.PLEADER SMT.LATHA T. THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.1045 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The claimant is aggrieved by the judgment of the Reference Court refusing to award any enhancement for the building which existed on his property which was acquired for the purpose of KEPIP for KINFRA. Hence, this appeal. 2. We have heard the submissions of Sri.R.Padmaraj, the learned counsel for the appellant and those of Smt.Latha T. Thankappan, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the Government and Sri.G.S.Raghunath, the learned Standing Counsel for KINFRA. Strong reliance was placed by Sri.Padmaraj L. A. A. No.1045 of 2009 -2- on Ext.A1 which according to him, is a bill issued by Nirmathi Kendra, the building which was constructed by them. As per Ext.A1, the total amount which was paid by the appellant to Nirmithi Kendra was Rs.11,28,613.50/-. Strong exception was taken both by Smt.Latha T. Thankappan and also by Sri.Raghunath relying on Ext.A1. Both of them submitted that the building was an incomplete building. According to them, Ext.A1 is not a bill, but only an estimate. 3. On reading through Ext.A1, it appears to us that it is a document containing the details of expenditure incurred by Nirmithi Kendra in the matter of construction of building. May be, the construction of the building had not been completed in all respects. But the fact remains that even going by Ext.A1, the L. A. A. No.1045 of 2009 -3- amount mentioned therein had already been expended by Nirmithi Kendra. We are, however, not prepared to place reliance on Ext.A1. We notice that a sum of Rs.7,00,955/- was determined by the Land Acquisition Officer adopting the PWD schedule of rates. It is well known that construction of building in accordance with the PWD schedule of rates is not a pragmatic proposition. PWD, themselves, are tendering out their works at rates 20% or 30% above their scheduled rates. Noticing that aspect of the matter, we are of the view that there is every justification for awarding at least Rs.2 lakhs to the appellant over and above what is awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Thus, allowing this appeal, we award a further amount of Rs.2 lakhs to the appellant as additional compensation for his acquired property. It is needless to mention L. A. A. No.1045 of 2009 -4- that for the above amount, the appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. 4. The appeal will stand allowed, but in the circumstances, without any order as to costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K. SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE kns/-