IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL FRIDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2011 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 LA.App..No. 273 of 2011(C) ------------------------------- LAR.222/2007 of SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANTS 1 AND 2 ----------------------------------------- 1. ANANDAN, THOPPPIL, PONAKAM, THEKKEKARA. 2. THULASI, W/O. ANANDAN, THOPPIL, PONAKAM, THEKKEKARA. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP SRI.V.SUNIL KUMAR (PANACHAMOODU) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), RAILWAYS, KAYAMKULAM - 690 502. 2. SOUTHERN RAILWAY, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001 SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.R.SHYAMKUMAR SRI.M.C.CHERIAN,SR.SC.,RAILWAYS FOR R2 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.273 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose The claimants are the appellants. Their lands with building situated in Thekkekkara village within the limits of Mavelikkara Municipality was acquired pursuant to Section 4 (1) notification published on 06/10/04. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of ` 34,916/- per Are. For the building which existed on the property, he awarded a total compensation of ` 3,84,628/-. Before the L.A. Court they had claimed for enhanced land value and enhanced compensation for the building. The court on evaluating the evidence adduced by the parties would award to the appellants a further amount of ` 25,000/- towards compensation for building and re-fixed land value at ` 50,000/- per Are. Thus, awarded enhanced land value of ` 15,084/- per Are. L. A. A. No.273 of 2011 -2- 2. In this appeal, various grounds are raised assailing what is described as the gross inadequacy in the compensation re-determined by the Reference Court. The enhanced land value at the rate of ` 48,800/- per Are is claimed over and above what is awarded by the Reference Court. Similarly enhanced compensation of ` 90,372/- is claimed towards the building. 3. We have heard the submissions of Sri.George Varghese Perumpallikuttiyil, the learned counsel for the appellants and Sri.M.C.Cherian, the learned Standing Counsel for the Railways. All the submissions of Sri.Cherian were supported by Sri.C.R.Shyamkumar, the learned Senior Government Pleader. Our attention was drawn by Sri.George to the judgment of this Court in L.A.A.185/11. It was submitted that under that judgment for identical property acquired for the same purpose, this Court has re-fixed the land value at ` 1,02,840/- per Are. It was also submitted that the total compensation awarded by the court for the building is grossly inadequate. The learned Standing Counsel for the L. A. A. No.273 of 2011 -3- Railways, however, submitted that it is not correct to say that the appellant is also entitled for re-fixation of land value at the rate of ` 1,02,840/- per Are. It was submitted that in the cases covered by L.A.A.185/11, the enhancement to ` 1,02,840/- per Are was from ` 54,916/- per Are fixed by the Reference Court. In the instance case, the Reference Court has awarded only ` 50,000/- per Are. Therefore, only a proportionate amount can be awarded. As regards the building value the learned Standing Counsel submitted that there is no material on the basis of which further compensation can be awarded. 4. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions addressed at the Bar. We shall deal first with the claim for compensation for the building. It is true that no cogent material is available on record on the basis of which we can award further compensation for the building. But it is not disputed that the building was valued by the L.A. Authority through the Public Works Department. It is also not disputed that the PWD valued the building on the basis of L. A. A. No.273 of 2011 -4- their published schedule of rates. It is a matter of common knowledge that construction of buildings in accordance with PWD's published schedule of rates is not a realistic proposition. Even the PWD tenders out its civil works at 30 to 35% more than their published schedule of rates. Keeping in mind that principle there is every justification for awarding to the appellants the rate claimed by them towards compensation for the building. Hence, we award to the appellants a further amount of ` 90,372/- towards value of the building. 5. We shall now deal with the question of determining the value of the land. We are not impressed by the submission of the learned Standing Counsel for the Railways that in the cases covered by the common judgment in L.A.A.185/11 series the rate was enhanced to ` 1,02,840/- per Are from the rate of ` 54,916/- per Are awarded by the Reference Court. The submission of the learned Standing Counsel may be factually correct. But what is more important is that for identical property for which the Land L. A. A. No.273 of 2011 -5- Acquisition Officer has granted the same value, this Court fixed the value to ` 1,02,840/- per Are. In the instant case, the claim is for a lesser amount. We allow the appeal and re- fix the land value at the rate of ` 48,800/- per Are over and above what is awarded by the Reference Court. The appeal is allowed in full. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. 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. Sd/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE Sd/- K. HARILAL JUDGE kns/- //True Copy// P. A. TO JUDGE