IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2009 / 24TH ASWINA 1931 LA.App..No. 1190 of 2009(B) --------------------------------- LAR.214/2004 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ----------------------------- NABEESA BEEGUM, T.C.20/2058, TAJ MANZIL, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTAHPURAM., BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTAHPURAM., 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, N.H.DIVISION, THIRUVANANTAHPURAM., SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/10/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.1190 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J In this appeal, the grievance voiced by the claimant is that the Reference Court went wrong in not awarding any enhancement towards the value of the building which existed on the property under acquisition. The appellant was awarded value at Rs.2,07,774/- for the buildings which existed on the property. The valuation certificate prepared by the Assistant Executive Engineer of the PWD (the very valuation certificate relied on by the L.A. Authority) is referred to by Mr.M.Sreekumar the learned counsel for the appellant who argued that it was an exactly similar L. A. A. No.1190 of 2009 -2- valuation certificate which was given by the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of the property acquired in L.A.R.108/03 (subject matter of Ext.A4). Counsel argued that the properties under acquisition and the properties in L.A.R.108/03 are situated very near to each other. Counsel further argued that since about 90% increase has been given by the learned Subordinate Judge towards enhancement of value for the building in Ext.A4, there is every justification for granting similar enhancement for the building which existed on the property under acquisition. The argument was that going by the valuation certificate the nature of the buildings which existed on Ext.A4 property and the property under acquisition in this case is same. We are not impressed by the L. A. A. No.1190 of 2009 -3- submissions of the learned counsel. Ordinarily, there cannot be any comparability between the two different buildings standing on two different plots adjacent though the plots may be. In the present case as per the valuation certificate, the recommended amount was only Rs.2,15,364/- which was granted to the appellant by the Land Acquisition Officer. We are therefore, unable to award 90% enhancement over the above amount to the appellant. At the same time, we notice that the valuation certificate itself will indicate that the building in question was valued by adopting the PWD schedule of rates. As pointed out by the learned senior Government Pleader, the serious contention of the appellant before the Reference Court was that the PWD schedule of rates published in 1999 L. A. A. No.1190 of 2009 -4- should have been followed and not the rates of 1996. Whatever that be, it is well known that construction of building in connection with PWD schedule of rates is not a very practical proposition. Even the PWD is tendering out its civil works at rates higher than its own schedule of rates. Taking that aspect into account, we are of the view that there is justification for awarding a sum of Rs.70,000/- more to the appellant towards the value of the buildings. 2. Thus, in modification of the impugned judgment and decree, we award a further amount of Rs.70,000/- to the appellant. The appeal will stand allowed to the above extent. It is clarified that on the amount awarded under this judgment, the appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible L. A. A. No.1190 of 2009 -5- under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. No costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K. SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE kns/-