IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2011 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1932 LA.App..No. 251 of 2008() ------------------------------- LAR.102/1999 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ------------------------------- PRABHAVATHI AMMA, D/O.KARTHIYANI AMMA, KALLELIL VEEDU, KUREEPUZHA CHERRY, THRIKKADAVOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. LATHA T. THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- L.A.A.No.251 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of March, 2011 Judgment Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The claimant is the appellant. Her claim is confined to the correct compensation to be paid for the building, the cattle shed and well which existed on the property under acquisition. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.32,621/- for these improvements. Before the reference court, the appellant took out a commission. The Commissioner inspected the improvements with the assistance of an approved valuer, a retired Executive Engineer from the P.W.D. On the basis of the valuation report prepared by the valuer, the Commissioner recommended for enhanced compensation to the tune of Rs.61,720/-. Before the reference court, the Commissioner was examined and commission report was marked. The valuer could not be examined as he passed away. The learned Subordinate Judge has discarded the Commissioner's report and valuer's report solely on the reason that unless the valuer is examined, the report cannot LAA 251/08 2 be said to be satisfactorily proved. In this appeal, grounds are raised against the decision of the court below not to rely on the commission report. 2. Mr.P.B.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Commissioner's report forms part of the record and the same shall stand duly proved. No objection was filed by the Government against the same. The valuer would not have been examined. Learned counsel would further submit that the report relied on can be accepted and the appeal be allowed in full. The submissions of Mr.Suresh Kumar were opposed by Smt.Latha T.Thankappan, learned Senior Government Pleader. She would, however, submit that there may be justification for awarding a further amount of Rs.11,400/- applying the principle that construction of buildings in accordance with P.W.D. schedule of rate is not a pragmatic idea. 3. We have anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We are not able to approve the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge to ignore the Commissioner's report on the reason that the valuer was not examined. At the same time, we are not inclined to accept the report of the LAA 251/08 3 Commissioner and the valuer in full. Having made a reappraisal of the entire evidence came on record including Ext.C1 and the valuer's report, we are of the view that the appellant can be awarded a further amount of Rs.30,000/- over and above what is awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer towards compensation for the buildings and improvements. We, therefore, award to the appellant a sum of Rs.30,000/- over and above what is awarded by the court below. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. The appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. srd LAA 251/08 4 LAA 251/08 5