IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI. MONDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2009 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1931 LA.App..No. 737 of 2001(D) -------------------------- LAR.277/1997 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANT IN LAR: -------------- DIVAKARAN, AGED 49, S/O. KOCHUKUTTAN, OF VELAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, NOW RESIDING AT GAYATHRI, EDAPPALLY NORTH. BY ADV. SRI.V.SANKARA RAJA RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS IN LAR: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LIMIYRF, UDYOGAMANDAL, COCHIN – 683 501. ( R2 IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER DATED 18/8/2004 IN I.A. 2697/2004) SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR ADDL.R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.BABU THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30 /3 /2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- L.A.Appeal No.737 of 2001 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose,J. Having heard the submissions of Smt.T.T.Josephina, the learned counsel for the appellant and having gone through the impugned judgment and having made a re-appraisal of the evidence, we are of the view that the learned subordinate judge was not justified in discarding the report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner and the expert on the basis that the same is secondary evidence. Even otherwise, we feel that there is justification for awarding enhancement since the valuation has been made by the L.A. Officer adopting the PWD rates. It is well known that the construction of the building in accordance with the PWD schedule is not a pragmatic proposition. Taking into account all these aspects, we are of the view that there is justification for awarding additional compensation of Rs.47,000/- to the appellant towards value of buildings and other structures, over and above LAA 737 OF 2001 2 what is awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The appeal stands allowed. There is a complaint by the appellant that the appellant was not given statutory benefits, such as the amounts under Section 23(1)(A) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act for the re-fixed land value given to the appellant under the impugned judgment even. We are of the view that having regard to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Sunder v Union of India [2001(3) KLT 489{SC}], the appellant is entitled for all statutory benefits under Sections 23(1)(A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act for the total enhanced compensation to which the appellant become eligible by virtue of the judgment of the reference court and by this judgment. Appeal allowed. In the above circumstances, the parties are directed to suffer their costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/ LAA 737 OF 2001 3 PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. LAA No.737 of 2001 JUDGMENT 15.10.2009