IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1ST ASWINA 1930 LA.App..No. 214 of 2007() ------------------------- LAR.61/1998 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ATTINGAL .................... APPELLANT: RESPONDENT ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANT ------------------------------ 1. KALIYAMPI RAGHAVAN, THUNDUPURAYIDOM, PERUMGUZHI, AZHOOR. (DIED). *ADDL R2 TO R6 IMPLEADED 2. SEETHA, D/O.KALIYAMPI RAGHAVAN, E.P.S.BHAVAN, MANCHERY, MALAPPURAM. 3. JAYAKUMAR, S/O.KALIYAMPI RAGHAVAN, THUNDUPURAYIDAM VEEDU, PEREUMGUZHI, AZHOOR. 4. AJITHKUMAR, S/O. -DO- -DO-. 5. BINDU KUMARI, D/O. -DO- -DO-. 6. SINDHU KUMARI, D/O.KALIYAMPI RAGHAVAN, LALITHA BHAVAN, KULATHOOR P.O., KAZHAKUTTOM. *R2 TO R6 ARE IMPLEADED AS LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED R1 VIDE ORDER DT. 29.5.2008 IN I.A.NO.4576/07. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.661 OF 2007 IN LAA NO.214 OF 2007 DISMISSED 23.9.2008 SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.No.214 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 23rd September, 2008 JUDGMENT The Government has come up in appeal against the award of the Land Acquisition Reference Court. That court did not allow any enhancement towards land value noticing that there was no evidence adduced by the claimants to support their claim for enhancement. A sum of Rs.4,000/- was however awarded as against a sum of Rs.665/- awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer towards value of four yielding coconut trees. Of course, the evidence before the reference court was only the oral evidence of A.W.1. However, having regard to the reasoning of the learned Subordinate Judge and matters of every day knowledge, I am of the view that there is no warrant for interference on that part of the award of the reference court pertaining to the coconut trees. The next and the further count on which enhancement was sought for and granted by the reference court was the value of the compound wall situated on the acquired property. According to the claimant A.W.1, he had expended Rs.15,000/- for the construction of the compound wall. There was no effective cross-examination on the above version of A.W.1 and what the learned Subordinate Judge did was to accept the claimant's LAA No.214/07 - 2 - version that he had expended Rs.15,000/- for construction of the compound wall and to deduct Rs.5,000/- therefrom towards depreciation for the period of 8 years which had passed after the compound wall had been constructed. Thus a sum of Rs.10,000/- was determined as the amount payable to the respondent-claimant. My attention was drawn by the learned Government Pleader to the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in State of Kerala v. Kuruvila (2005(3) KLT 580) and it was submitted that the Division Bench in that case had followed earlier decisions in Bhavani Ramalakshmy v. State of Kerala (1990(2) KLT 581) and Mytheen Kunju Abdulrahiman Kunju v. State (1954 KLT 798) and held that depreciation in the case of A class buildings will be 5/6 % per year from the third year of construction and in the case of B class buildings, it will be 5/6 % per year from the very first year of construction. The instant construction which is a compound wall could have only been B class construction, according to the Government Pleader. I find merit in the above submission of the Government Pleader. According to me, the learned Subordinate Judge was not justified in accepting the claimant's version of having expended Rs.15,000/- for the construction of the compound wall. After all this is LAA No.214/07 - 3 - an aspect on which better quality evidence in the form of commission report or documents were possible and the respondent-claimant did not bother to adduce any such evidence. A little bit of exaggeration should have been assumed about the oral claim of A.W.1 and I am of the view that the respondent would not have expended more than Rs.10,000/- at the time of construction of the compound wall in question. Thus, it is found that the compound wall was constructed expending Rs.10,000/- some 8 years prior to the acquisition. Applying the principles laid down in the decisions referred to above, a sum of Rs.666.66 will have to be deducted. To that extent the award of the reference court will stand interfered with and modified. The result is that the appeal will stand allowed to the following extent: The total enhanced compensation to which the respondents are entitled will stand reduced to Rs.12668.34 (13,335 – 666.66). It is needless to mention that the statutory benefits including those under Section 23(1A) and Section 23(2) will also become proportionately reduced. In the circumstances of the case, parties are directed to suffer their costs through out. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE LAA No.214/07 - 4 -