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 6TH JANUARY 2011 / 16TH POUSHA 1932 LA.App..No. 1242 of 2010() -------------------------- LAR.12/2006 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANTS 1 TO 6 IN THE LAR: ------------------------------------------ 1. AYSHA BEEVI, D/O.LATE MUHAMMED POOTHOLIPARAMBIL, VADAKKUMBHAGAMKARA, EDAPPALLY NORTH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SAIDU, S/O. LATE MUHAMMED POOTHOLIPARAMBIL (H), EDAPPALLY NORTH, EDAPPALLY NORTH POST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. SUHARA, D/O.LATE MUHAMMED, POOTHOLIPARAMBIL, EDAPPALLI (N), KOCHI-24, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SAIDU, S/O.LATE MUHAMMED POOTHOLIPARAMBIL (H), EDAPPALLY NORTH, EDAPPALLY NORTH POST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. RAMLATH, D/O.LATE MUHAMMED POOTHOLIPARAMBIL, EDAPPALLI (N), KOCHI-24, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SAIDU S/O.LATE MUHAMMED POOTHOLIPARAMBIL (H), EDAPPALLY NORTH EDAPPALLY NORTH POST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. BEEVI, D/O.LATE MUHAMMED, POOTHILIPARAMBU, EDAPPALLY NORTH, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED THROUGH THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SAIDU S/O.LATE MUHAMMED POOTHOLIPARAMBIL (H), EDAPPALLY NORTH, EDAPPALLY NORTH POST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. SAIDU, S/O.LATE MUHAMMED POOTHOLIPARAMBIL, EDAPPALLI (N), KOCHI-24, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 6. SAHAD, D/O.LATE MUHAMMED POOTHOLIPARAMBIL, EDAPPALLI (N), KOCHI-24, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SAIDU S/O.LATE MUHAMMED PLOOTHOLIPARAMBIL (H), EDAPPALLY NORTH, EDAPPALLY NORTH POST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.ABDUL SALAM SRI.ANEESH CHIDAMBARAN RESPONDENT(S)(RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN THE LAR): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE SEPCIAL TAHSILDAR, (LA) NH-NO.1, KAKKANAD, COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NH (BRIDGE) DIVISION, KODUNGALLOOR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.T.JOSEPHINA THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No. 1242 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this appeal preferred by the claimants is the award of the Land Acquisition Reference Court enhancing the land value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer by 30%. The property was in Edappally North Village. The Land Acquisition Officer included the property in category 6 and awarded land value of Rs. 91680/- per Are. The Reference Court, on evaluating the evidence that was adduced by the parties, refixed the land value by granting enhancement by 30%. 2. We notice the various judgments of this court pertaining to acquisition of land for the same purpose covered by the same notification and find that for properties, which were included in category 5(which is slightly superior to the properties in category 6), this Court has refixed the value roughly at 55% over what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The properties acquired were nearby properties situated contiguously . We are of the view that there must be some co-relation between the L.A.A.No.1242/2010 2 values of various categories of properties situated within a compact local area. We further notice that in respect of the properties in other categories (which is superior categories) this Court has approved enhancement upto 60% and in a given case even upto 65%. 3. Taking into account all these aspects, we are of the view that the market value refixed by the learned Subordinate Judge is not sufficient . We feel that the market value for the properties under acquisition can be reasonably fixed at 55% above the value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The amount will be Rs.1,42,104/- per Are. We round it off to Rs.1,42,105/- per Are. 4. The appellants have another grievance. The grievance is that the court below did not award any enhancement for the building which existed on the property under acquisition. According to him, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded an amount of Rs.4,60,254/- for the building which had carpet area of 3500 square feet. The Advocate Commissioner, who conducted an inspection with the assistance of an expert engineer, recommended for value at the rate of Rs.600/- per L.A.A.No.1242/2010 3 square feet. The report was discarded by the court below. 5. Smt.T.T.Josephina , learned senior Government Pleader would oppose the submissions of Mr.Abdul Salam learned counsel for the appellants. She drew our attention to the discussions of the learned Subordinate Judge in the context of the building value claimed and submitted that the commission report could not have been relied on. 6. Having considered the submissions addressed at the Bar and having gone through the impugned judgment, we are of the view that the learned Subordinate Judge was perfectly justified in discarding the commission report relating to the value to be awarded for the building. At the same time, we notice another aspect. The value of Rs.4,60,254/- was arrived at by the Public Works Department adopting their own published schedule of rates. It is a matter of common knowledge that construction of buildings in accordance with the schedule of rates published by the Public Works Department is not a pragmatic proposition. Even the Public Works Department is tendering out their civil works at 30 to 40 % above their own scheduled rates. We feel that there is justification for granting a further L.A.A.No.1242/2010 4 compensation of Rs.1,35,000/- more as value for the building in question. We award that amount as an additional value for the building in question. The appellants will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(2) 23(1A) and Section 28 of the Act on the total enhanced compensation to which they become eligible by virtue of this judgment. However, we make it clear that the for period of 689 days, which was condoned by this court by order in C.M.Appln. 1984/2010, the compensation will not carry interest under Section 28. The Registry will take note of the order in C.M.Appln.1984/2010 while drafting the decree. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk