IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2007 / 17TH JYAISHTA 1929 LA.App..No. 661 of 2007() ------------------------- LAR.114/2003 of ADDL.SUB COURT,PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT: RESPONDENT: ---------------------- STATE OF KERALA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANT: ---------------------- JOSEPH, S/O.PATHROSE, VALIYAVEETTIL, PALLIPURAM. BY THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/06/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kurian Joseph & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A..NO.661 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of June, 2007 JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph, J. This appeal is filed agianst the judgment and decree in L.A.R. No.114/2003 on the file of the Addl. Sub Court, North Parur. The extent involved is only 1.06 ares of land. The acquisition is for construction of Maliamkara - Munambam Bridge. Section 4(1) notification is on 18.8.2000 and the Acquisiton Officer fixed the land value at Rs.54,330/- per are. The reference court enhanced the land value by Rs.59,220/- per are. There is also enhanement in the value of structure by 30%. Aggrieved by the above, this appeal is filed. As far as the value of structure is concerned, it is seen that the reference court has adverted to Exts.C1 to C3 and has found that no sufficient data has been furnished by the expert engineer to assess the veracity of the report. It was also found that there is no basis for the fixation of the market value of the materials. The reference court still further found that the determination of the age and the consequential depreciation was not proper. It was also noticed that in the detailed LAA 661/2007 -2- valuation statement, no provision has been made for contractor's profit and supervision charges. It was in such circumstances only, the reference court granted enhancement by 30%, particularly in view of the omission and non availability of materials in the open market at P.W.D. rates. We are of the view that the enhancement as far as the value of the building is only just and proper. As far as enhancement in land value is concerned, the claimants had a case for fixation of land value at the rate of Rs.75,000/- per cent. The reference court taking note of the value awarded to the acquired property covered in L.A.R. No.104/2003 and taking note of the further fact that the said land also is acquired for the very same purpose under the very same notification and also taking note of the fact that the land involved in L.A.R. No.104/2003 has admittedly been included in a lower category, granted 109% enhancement over and above the land value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. If the enhancement for the lower category of land covered by L.A.R. No.104/2003 could be granted 109% enhancement, the reasoning adopted by the reference court that enhancement for the land included in the higher category could be 109% is just and proper. All that apart, as already noticed, the land involved is only very meagre, i.e. 1.06 ares. LAA 661/2007 -3- For all the above reasons, we do not think it necessary to admit the appeal and issue notice. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. (Kurian Joseph, Judge.) (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/