IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1932 LA.App..No. 883 of 2003() ------------------------- LAR.304/1995 of ADDL.SUB COURT,PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT(S):: -------------- 1. K.N.AMBUJAKSHAN, S/O. KADAMBRA NARAYANAN, KADAMBRA HOUSE, PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE BRAHMAPURAM. 2. PRABHAKARAN, S/O. KADAMBRA NARAYANAN, NOW RESIDING AT KADAMBRA HOUSE, MARANGATTUPALLI KARA, THIRUVANIYOOR P.O. BY ADV.AGINOV MATHAPPAN BY ADV. SRI.J.MATHAPPAN SRI.J.MATHAPPAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECREATARY VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. PANKAJAKSHAN, S/O. KADAMBRA NARAYANAN, KADAMBRA HOUSE, PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE BRAHMAPURAM. 4. RAGHAVAN, S/O. KADAMBRA NARAYANAN, NOW RESIDING AT SREERAGAM, KADAMBRA HOUSE PERINGALA P.O.(VIA) KUMARAPURAM 683 565. 5. MSNOHSTSN, S/O. KADAMBRA NARAYANAN, NOW RESIDING AT KADAMBRA HOUSE, PUTHENCRUZ P.O. MONIPPILLY. ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SC, KSEB FOR R2 SRI.SIMON LUIZ FOR R5 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA T.THANKAPPAN SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R2 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No. 883 OF 2003 ------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. We have heard Sri. Aginov Mathappan, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri.C.K.Karunakaran, learned standing counsel for the KSEB and Smt.Latha T.Thankappan, learned senior Government Pleader for the Government. 2. This appeal preferred by the claimants is confined to their claim for enhanced compensation for the building which existed on the property under acquisition. The learned Reference Court has not considered the claim of the appellants for additional building value. 3. On going through the impugned judgment, we find that no satisfactory evidence is adduced by the appellants in support of their claim for building value. The appellants relied on Ex.A2. Ext.A2 is the valuer's report. We are in agreement with the learned Subordinate Judge that the valuation taken by the engineer and submitted through Ext.A2 report is not .L.A.A.No.883/2003 2 satisfactory. But, at the same time, we notice that the building was valued by the Land Acquisition Officer through the engineers of the Public Works Department. It is a matter of common knowledge that construction of buildings as per the PWD scheduled of rates is not very pragmatic propositions. Even the PWD is tendering out its civil works at 30 to 35% more than its published rates. Keeping those aspects in mind, we are inclined to award a further amount of Rs.30,500/- to the appellants as additional compensation towards building value. We allow this appeal to the extent of awarding to the appellant an amount of Rs.30,500/- as additional compensation for building value. This amount will carry statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(2), 23(1A) and Section 28 of the Act. The parties will suffer their respective costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk .L.A.A.No.883/2003 3 PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No. 883 OF 2003 ------------------------ JUDGMENT 24th February 2011