IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 26TH MAGHA 1931 LA.App..No. 76 of 2009(D) ----------------------------- LAR.97/2004 of SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANTS: ------------------------------ 1. PAULOSE, S/O.THOMAS, THONNAMATTATHIL, MATTAKKUZHI, VARIKOLI P.O. 2. VARGHESE, S/O. THOMAS, THONNAMATTATHIL, MATTAKKUZHI, VARIKOLI P.O. BY ADV. SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) SRI.SHAJI SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) KOCHI REFINERIES LIMITED, TRIPUNITHURA. 2. KOCHI REFINERIES LIMITED, AMBALAMUGAL. ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R2 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R2 GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI (SR) THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.76 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The claimants are in appeal. Their lands in Thiruvaniyoor village with building were acquired for the purposes of Kochin Refineries Ltd. On the appeal coming up for admission on behalf of M/s Menon & Pai, Smt.Thushara James took notice and we have heard the submissions of Sri.B.Premnath, the learned counsel for the appellants and those of Thushara James. We have also heard the submissions of Sri.Basant Balaji, the learned senior Government Pleader. 2. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land L. A. A. No.76 of 2009 -2- value at the rate of Rs.34,800/- per Are. The only tangible item of evidence produced by the appellant before the Reference Court was Ext.A1 judgment of the Reference Court Case relating to acquisition of land by Hindustan Organic Chemicals. We find that Ext.A1 judgment has been relied on and the land value has been re- fixed to Rs.45,818/- per Are. Since Ext.A1 was the only item of tangible evidence and the same was relied on, we do not find warrant for giving any further enhancement towards land value. We repel the claim towards enhancement in land value. 3. The first appellant was awarded a total amount of Rs.2,81,518/- towards value of the L. A. A. No.76 of 2009 -3- buildings and other structures which existed on a part of the property. The second appellant was awarded a sum of Rs.4,28,798/- towards the value of the buildings and structures which existed on his property. Mr.B.Premnath would refer to judgment of this Court in L.A.A.934/09 and submit that at least 20% enhancement be granted on the value of the structures. Smt.Thushara James would very stiffly oppose this request. She submitted that this is a case where the appellants have not chosen to take out a commission and to substantiate their case for enhancement in value of the building. Not that we do not find any warrant in the submission of the learned counsel for the Requisitioning Authority, but we notice that L. A. A. No.76 of 2009 -4- the buildings and structures were got valued by the Land Acquisition Authority by the Engineers of the PWD who adopted the PWD schedule of rates. It is well known that construction of buildings in accordance with PWD schedule of rates is not a pragmatic proposition. We notice that even the PWD is tendering out its civil works at rates 30% to 35% above their published schedule of rates. Under the above circumstances, we are of the view that there is justification for granting enhancement at 20% requested by the appellants for the buildings which existed on the acquired property. 4. The result of the above discussion is that appellant No.1 is awarded Rs.56,303/- which we L. A. A. No.76 of 2009 -5- round off to Rs.56,400/- as additional compensation towards the value of the buildings. Similarly, appellant No.2 is awarded Rs.81,320/- which we round off to Rs.81,400 towards additional value of the buildings which existed on the property under acquisition. 5. The appeal will stand allowed to the above extent. It is needless to mention that both the appellants will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under sections 23(2), 23(1A) and under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on the enhanced compensation which they are getting by virtue of this judgment. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. The Registry will issue certified copy of the decree to L. A. A. No.76 of 2009 -6- the appellants only on satisfying that the entire balance court fee is remitted. Balance court fee will be remitted within three weeks from today. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/- Words and figure “Rs.81,320/- which we round off to Rs.81,400/-” occurring in the 3rd and 4th lines of page 5 of the judgment in L.A.A. No.76/2009 are corrected and substituted as “Rs.85,759/-” vide order dated 31/03/2010 in I.A.977/2010. Sd/- Registrar (Judicial)