IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2009 / 9TH ASHADHA 1931 LA.App..No. 1427 of 2003() -------------------------- LAR.363/1998 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT: ----------------------- P.P. KURIACHAN, S/O. PATHROSE, PYNADATH HOUSE, KEEZHPARIYARAM, VAPPALASERRY P.O., NEDUMBASSERRY. BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) NO.1 KIA, NEDUMBASSERRY, ANGAMALY. 2. KOCHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SOCIETY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R2 SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC, COCHIN I AIRPORT LT FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.1427 OF 2003 ------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. This is an appeal by the claimant, who is aggrieved by the award of the land acquisition reference court. The acquisition was for the purpose of International Airport at Nedumbassery. On the land under acquisition there existed a residential building and structures belonging to the appellant. The land acquisition officer awarded total amount of Rs.3,46,000/- towards value of the building and structures obviously on the basis of PWD valuation. The evidence on the side of the claimant, in the context of his claim for enhancement towards structures, consisted of Ext.C1 commission report submitted by an advocate who revalued the building with the assistance of an engineer. The advocate commissioner was examined as AW2. The learned Subordinate Judge was not impressed by the advocate commissioner's report and hence did not place any reliance on the recommendation of the commissioner. Ultimately, what the LAA.No.1427/2003 2 learned Subordinate Judge did was to grant enhancement by 45% over the land value and not to award any enhancement towards value of structures. 2. We have heard the submissions of Sri.Vinod Ravindranath, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant, Smt.T.N.Girija, learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent requisitioning authority and those of Sri.Bijoy Chandran, learned Government Pleader for the first respondent. 3. Sri.Vinod Ravindranth argued that the court below was not justified in completely discarding the commission report. He pointed out that there was no counter oral evidence at all on the side of the Government and the requisitioning authority. He submitted that the commissioner, who prepared Ext.C1 report as well as another commissioner, who had been deputed by the Civil Court in earlier case, had uniformly recommended value of Rs.7,00,000/- towards the building. He, therefore, argued that at least 7,00,000/- should be fixed as the correct market value of the building. LAA.No.1427/2003 3 4. Submissions of Sri. Vinod Ravindranath were all stiffly resisted by Smt.T.N.Girija, learned Standing Counsel and Sri.Basant Balaji, learned Government Pleader. 5. Having gone through the impugned judgment and having considered the submissions, we are of the view that the learned Subordinate Judge was justified in not placing reliance on the advocate commissioner's report. However, we notice that it is by adopting the PWD schedule of rates that the land acquisition officer valued the building. It is well known that it is not a pragmatic proposition to construct building in accordance with the PWD schedule of rate. It is also well known that even the PWD tenders its work at 20 to 30% above its own schedule of rates. Taking that aspects of matter into account, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled for enhanced value towards structures which existed on the acquired property to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/-. Accordingly, we award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards structure value over and above what was awarded by the land acquisition officer. The appeal will stand allowed to the above extent. But, in LAA.No.1427/2003 4 the circumstances parties will suffer their own costs. It is needless to mention that the appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible in law. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE dpk