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 14TH JUNE 2010 / 24TH JYAISTHA 1932 LA.App..No. 214 of 2010(C) -------------------------- LAR.16/2008 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- SURENDRAN, S/O.CHANDRAN, VELUTHEDATH PARAMBIL,VATTAKUNNAM, CHERANELLOOR(N) VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.E.D.GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(L.A), NH NO.1, KAKKANAD. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,NH(B) DIVISION, KODUNGALLUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.R.BINDU THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No. 214 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The claimant is in appeal. His land with building situated in Cheranelloor village was acquired for the purpose of up gradation of N.H.17. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.152320/- per Are. Reliance was placed mostly by the claimant before the court below on Ext.A1 judgment. Under Ext.A1 judgment, the court below had awarded land value of Rs.1,71,600/- per Are for identical properties acquired pursuant to the same notification. Nevertheless the Court below did not become inclined to place reliance on Ext.A1. What was done was only to increase the land value by 40% of what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. According to the Court below, since there is a distance of 1½ K.M. between the acquired property and Ext.A1 property, the appellant cannot be awarded full value as awarded under Ext.A1. According to us, the approach of the learned Subordinate Judge was not reasonable. The Land Acquisition Officer having treated both the LAA.No.214/2010 2 properties to be of the same value, the Court below could have awarded the same value, as was awarded to the properties in Ext.A1, to the appellant also. Relying on Ext.A1 fully, we refix the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs.171,600/- per Are. 2. The appellant has another claim. The same is towards additional compensation for building value. As rightly submitted by the learned Government Pleader, the Court below did not become inclined to place reliance on the evidence adduced by the claimant. However, what the court below did was to enhance the compensation of the building by 30%. It is clear to our mind that the Court below had kept in mind the reality that the construction of buildings in terms of PWD published schedule of rate is not pragmatic proposition. Keeping the same principle in mind, we are of the view that the appellant can be awarded some more amount towards building value. We award to the appellant a further amount of Rs.8336/- more towards building value. 3. It is needless to mention that the claimant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(2), LAA.No.214/2010 3 23(1A) and 28 of the Act on the total enhanced compensation to which he becomes eligible by virtue of this judgment. The appeal is allowed as above. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE dpk