IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 14TH MAGHA 1931 LA.App..No. 405 of 2009() & C.O. No. 43 OF 2009 ------------------------- LAR.21/2006 of ADDL.SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT NO.1 ----------------------------- SECRETARY, GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MATHILAKAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT AND RESPONDENT NO.2 ------------------------------------------- 1. KHADER C.K., S/O. KUNJUMUHAMMED, CHENEZHATHPARAMBIL HOUSE, PUTHIYAKAVU, P.O.MATHILAKAM. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI.S.SUJIN FOR R2 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 3/02/2010, ALONG WITH CO NO. 43 OF 2009 CO NO. 43 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------- LAA. No. 405 of 2009 & C.O. No. 43 of 2009 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J. The Panchayat has come up in appeal against the award of enhanced compensation for the buildings which existed on the property under acquisition. The claimant has filed a memorandum of cross objection contending that the compensation awarded by the reference court is not adequate. The land acquisition officer awarded a total amount of Rs.1,23,370/- obviously adopting the PWD schedule of rates for valuation. Before the reference court the cross objector claimant took out a commission. The commissioner was assisted by a Chartered Engineer and approved valuer. He submitted Ext.A1(b) valuation statement which was accepted by the Commissioner and produced along with the commissioner's report. As per Ext.A1(b) a total amount of Rs.4,10,000/- is recommended LAA.405/09 & CO. 43/09 - 2 - as the value of the buildings. Before the reference court the Chartered Engineer was examined as AW2 and the Commissioner's report was marked as Ext.C1. The court below was not inspired by A1(b) valuation report or by the testimony of AW2. The court below however, noticed that in A1(b) report no depreciation had been made. However, taking into account the fact that the two shop rooms which accounted for substantial portion of the buildings were constructed just one year earlier, the court below would obviously on the basis of guess work fix value of the building at Rs.2,50,000/-. In the appeal preferred by the Panchayat they assail such fixation as excessive and arbitrary. In the memorandum of cross objection the claimant contends that Ext.A1(b) valuation report should have been accepted and the full value recommended in A1 (b) that is, Rs.4,10,000/- should have been awarded. Sri.T.H.Abdul Azeez, learned counsel for the appellant would LAA.405/09 & CO. 43/09 - 3 - argue on the basis of Ext.C1 report and A1(b) valuation statement that atleast the sum of Rs.4,10,000/- should have been awarded. 2. We have considered the rival submissions. We have gone through Exts.C1 and A1(b). We are in agreement with the learned Subordinate Judge that A1(b) valuation report is not a convincing one. We notice from A1(b) that what the Engineer has done is to value the building not on the basis of the measurements and other details recorded during inspection, but to calculate the total cost on the basis that the construction cost is Rs.7000/- per sq. metre. We are also therefore not impressed much by A1(b) report in terms of which only AW2 has given his evidence. At the same time, we feel that there was justification for awarding enhancement of compensation for the building since obviously the L.A. Officer valued the building on the basis of the PWD schedule rates. We notice that the PWD is LAA.405/09 & CO. 43/09 - 4 - tendering its civil works at rates higher than their published rates. We also notice that the shop rooms in question were relatively new constructions. Taking both those circumstances into account, we modify the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge to the extent the same pertains to value of the buildings and refix the value of the building at Rs.2 lakhs. Appeal stands allowed as above. Cross objection stands dismissed. Needless to mention that the claimant cross objector will be entitled to all statutory benefits on the enhancement as refixed under this judgment. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ksv/-