IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2010 / 29TH POUSHA 1931 LA.App..No. 2195 of 2008() -------------------------- LAR.427/2005 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------- 1. MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA, HAYER MANZIL, T.C.20/1144, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. NAZEERA, AGED 41 YERS, W/O.LATE MOHAMMED MOIDEEN, HAYER MANZIL, T.C.20/1144, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SAFEERA MOIDEEN, AGED 23 YEARS, HAYER MANZIL, T.C.20/1144, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. ARAFATH MOIDEEN, AGED 20, HAYER MANZIL, T.C.20/1144, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. BASEEM MOIDEEN, AGED 15, HAYER MANZIL, T.C.20/1144, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. REP. BY MOTHER, 2ND APPELLANT. BY ADV. SRI.S.D.ASOKAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, N.H.DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. MUHAMMED HUSSAIN, HAYER MANZIL, T.C.20/1144, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.J.HARIKUMAR FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. LATHA T. THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ---------------------------------- L.A.A. No.2195 of 2008 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T --------------------- Pius C.Kuriakose,J. Claimants are the appellants. The appeal is confined to the compensation payable for the building. The building which existed on the acquired property was a commercial building with six rooms. Claimants were the co- owners and they were entitled for 4 out of 6 rooms. The one ground which is seriously urged in the memorandum of appeal is that learned Sub Judge under the impugned judgment awarded an enhanced compensation of Rs.20,000/- to claimant Nos:1 and 3 to 7 who together were entitled for 1/3rd of the value of 2 rooms, were awarded enhanced compensation of Rs.30,000/- by the learned Sub Judge while the appellants were awarded (who were entitled for a value of 4 rooms) only a total amount of Rs.20,000/-. There is no justification for the above discrimination. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the only reason stated by the learned Sub Judge is that teakwood has been used for the L.A.A.2195/08-C 2 construction of the building, portion belonging to claimant No.2. The argument of the learned counsel is that the building was constructed by the predecessor in interest of all the claimants at one time using the same materials and hence, there is no justification for the discriminatory treatment meted out by the learned Sub Judge. Mr. Basant Balaji, senior Government Pleader would submit that though it is true that the entire building was constructed by the common predecessor in interest of the parties, the buildings were considerably improved after the same came under the co-ownership of the various claimants. Building portion belonging to claimant No:2 had been considerably improved i.e, in relation to the portion belonging to the appellant. 2. We have considered the rival submissions. While we are able to approve the action of the learned Sub Judge in having awarded better compensation for the building portion belonging to claimant No.2 we feel that the learned Sub Judge was too miserly in awarding compensation for the building portion belonging to the appellant since the building was constructed by one person at same time. The main structure was originally one. We are of the view that the appellant ought to have been awarded at least Rs.50,000/- as L.A.A.2195/08-C 3 enhanced compensation by the learned Sub Judge while they have been awarded only Rs.20,000/-. Therefore we are inclined to award further amount of Rs.30,000- over and above what was awarded under the impugned judgment to the appellants as compensation for the building. Appeal stands allowed to the above extent. It is needless to mention that for the sum of Rs.30,000/- which is being awarded as additional compensation for the structure, the appellants will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. We allow the appeal to the above extent but without any order as to costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb