IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2011 / 31ST JYAISHTA 1933 LA.App..No. 1008 of 2007() -------------------------- LAR.56/2003 of SUB COURT,THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): ADDL.CLAIMANTS ---------------------------- 1. ABDUL RASHEED, S/O.MUTHUMEERA, PERUNILATH, VADAKKUMMURI, THODUPUZHA EAST P.O. 2. SAFIA, D/O.MUTHUMEERA, SHE IS MARRIED TO SAMEER, PUTHUPARAMBIL, IST MILE, ANITHOTTAM P.O., KANJIRAPPALLY. 3. MUHAMMED JAFFAR, S/O.MUTHUMEERA, PERUNILATH, VADAKKUMMURI, THODUPUZHA EAST P.O. 4. NISSAMOL, W/O.SHAJAHAN, KIZHAKKEMADATHIL HOUSE, KARIKODE, THODUPUZHA EAST P.O. 5. ABDUL NOOR, S/O.MUTHUMEERA, PERUNILATH, VADAKKUMMURI, THODUPUZHA EAST P.O. 6. FATHIMA, D/O.MUTHUMEERA, SHE IS MARRIED AND HER ADDRESS IS FATHIMA, W/O.JALAL, PATHIKAVALIYAVEETTIL, EDAVANAKKADU P.O., NEAR A.E.O. OFFICE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 7. SIYAD, S/O.MUTHUMEERA, PERUNILATH, VADAKKUMMURI, THODUPUZHA EAST P.O. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.BABU SMT.N.SUDHA SMT.C.SEENA SRI.S.AJITH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS & ADDL.CLAIMANTS K TO M -------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI. 2. NISAMOL, W/O.ISMAIL, PERUNILATH, VADAKKUMMURI, THODUPUZHA EAST P.O. 3. FAHAD, S/O.ISMAIL, PERUNILATH, THODUPUZHA EAST P.O., REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN NISAMOL. 4. NISHAD, S/O.ISMAIL, PERUNILATH, THODUPUZHA EAST P.O., REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN NISAMOL. R2 TO R4 ARE DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANTS VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 21-6-11 IN LAA 1008/07 GOVT. PLEADER SMT. T.T.JOSEPHINA FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- LAA. No. 1008 of 2007 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The appeal is remaining defective on the reason that service of notice is not completed on respondents 2 to 4. In fact, the notice sent to the second respondent is returned with the endorsement that R2 is no more. It is submitted by Smt. N.Sudha that these respondents have not been awarded any compensation by the court below and as they have not come up in appeal they are only proper parties to the present appeal and not necessary parties. Ongoing through the impugned award we find merit in the above submission of Smt. Sudha. We delete R2 to R4 from the array of parties at the risk of the appellants. 2. The claimants are in appeal. The property was in Thodupuzha Village and the acquisition was for the construction of Vengalloor – Mangattukavala four lane road LAA. 1008/07 -2- pursuant to Section f(1) Notification published on 1-6-1999. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.6,600/- per cent. The reference court under the impugned judgment re-fixed the land value at Rs.43,700/- per cent. For the buildings which existed on the property, the LAO awarded structure value of Rs.1,92,677/-. The reference court did not award any enhancement on building value for want of legal evidence. In this appeal, the appellant claims further enhancement of land value by Rs.2000/- per cent. The appellant claims a total amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as additional compensation for the buildings. 3. Having considered the submissions addressed before us by Smt. Sudha, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. T.T. Josephina, learned Govt. pleader and having taken into account the judgment of this Court in State of Kerala v. Jose Simon, 2009(1) KLT 760 and various other judgments by which this court has fixed the value of land in LAA. 1008/07 -3- Thodupuzha Village acquired at various points of time, we don't find any difficulty for awarding further amount of Rs.2000/- per cent to the appellant as land value. We award to the appellant Rs.2000/- more per cent as land value for the land which acquired from the appellant. 4. Coming to the claim for additional compensation for buildings, we find that there is no legal evidence on the basis of which enhancement can be justified. But we notice that the land acquisition authority valued the buildings by adopting the PWD schedule of rates. On the principle that construction of buildings as per PWD schedule of rates is not pragmatic and that the PWD itself is tendering out its civil works at 30 to 35% above their published rates, we award to the appellant a further amount of Rs.60,000/- as additional compensation for the buildings. Appeal is allowed to the above extent. The appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under LAA. 1008/07 -4- Section 23(1A), 23(2 and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs in this appeal. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) ksv/-