IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 16TH AUGUST 2011 / 25TH SRAVANA 1933 LA.App..No. 1296 of 2010(D) ---------------------------------------- [LAR.NO.17/2008 OF SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA DTD. 30/06/2010] .................... APPELLANT/CLAIMANT: ----------------------------------- RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT PALAMUTTATHU HOUSE, NADAKKAVU MURI, PERINGALA VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM. BY ADVS. SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI, SMT.SABINA JAYAN, SMT.MINI.V.A. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE GOVT. PLEADER, HIGH COURT. 2. THE SOUTHERN RAILWAY,REPRESENTED BY TIS GENERAL MANAGER, CHENNAI. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. T.T. JOSEPHINA, R2 BY SRI.M.C.CHERIAN, SC. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/08/2011, ALONG WITH L.A.A. NOS. 211/2011 & 349 /2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------- L.A.A.Nos.1296 of 2010, 211 of 2011 and 349 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of August, 2011. J U D G M E N T PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. All these appeals pertains to acquisition of lands in Peringala and Pathiyoor villages for the purpose of doubling of the railway lane from Kayamkulam to Alleppey. In these cases except L.A.A.No.349 of 2011, advance possession was taken on 13.1.2005. In L.A.A.No.349 of 2011 the Section 4(1) notification was published on 27.12.2004. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at Rs.21,601/- per are in the cases corresponding to L.A.A.Nos.1296 of 2010 and 211 of 2011. Whereas in the case corresponding to L.A.A.No.349 of 2011, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.24,244/- per are. Towards the building (buildings ?) which existed on the property covered by L.A.A.No.1296 of 2010, the LAO awarded a total amount of Rs.4,09,451/-. The commissioner appointed by the reference court recommended for enhancement of the building value for several lakhs. The court below did not become inclined to rely 2 L.A.A.Nos.1296 of 2010, 211 of 2011 and 349 of 2011 on the commissioner's report. The court below applied the rule of thumb and had enhanced the land value at Rs.1 lakh in all cases. There existed a small building in the property covered by L.A.A.No.211 of 2011 also. But as in this appeal grounds are not raised in the context of building value, we are not concerned about the award of compensation for the building in that case. In all these appeals, grounds are raised seeking enhancement of land value and in L.A.A.No.1296 of 2010 grounds are raised seeking enhancement in building value also. Sri.R.Rajasekharan Pillai learned counsel for the appellant addressed very strenuous arguments before us based on the grounds raised in all these three appeals. According to him, the court below was not justified in excluding Exts.A1 and A2. He requested that the land value may be enhanced at the claimed rate of Rs.1,25,000/- per are for L.A.A.No.211 of 2011, @ Rs.1,50,000/- per are for L.A.A.No.1296 of 2011 and @ Rs.1,80.000/- per are for L.A.A.No.349 of 2011. He also requested that the building value be enhanced by atleast Rs.3,23,532/- in L.A.A.No.1296 of 2011. 2. All the submissions of Mr.Rajasekharan Pillai were 3 L.A.A.Nos.1296 of 2010, 211 of 2011 and 349 of 2011 opposed very stiffly by Sri.M.C.Cherian, learned standing counsel for Railway. Mr.Cherian was supported by Smt.T.T.Josephina, learned Government Pleader. 3. We have very anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have had a quick appraisal of the evidence for the purpose of appreciating the arguments addressed. Having considered the submissions addressed and having applied our mind to the material items of evidence available on record, we feel that on a better assessment, based on the evidence available on record, the market value of the lands involved in L.A.A.Nos.1296 of 2010 and 211 of 2011, which corresponds respectively to L.A.R.Nos.17 of 2008 and 10 of 2008 can be refixed at Rs.40,000/- per are. Similarly, we feel that the market value involved in L.A.A.No.349 of 2011 which corresponds to L.A.R.No.73 of 2008 can be refix at Rs.42,000/- per are. The market value in all the three land acquisition cases is refixed accordingly. 4. We shall now deal with the claim for enhancement in the building value of L.A.A.No.1296 of 2010. We are not 4 L.A.A.Nos.1296 of 2010, 211 of 2011 and 349 of 2011 inclined to accept argument raised by Mr.Rajasekharan Pillai that the recommendations of the Advocate Commissioner should be accepted in full. According to us, learned Sub Judge was justified in not accepting the recommendations of the Commissioner. At the same time there is some force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Sub Judge was very miserly while fixing the compensation for the building. Keeping in mind the principle that construction of buildings in accordance with the PWD's published schedule of rates is not a pragmatic proposition, we are inclined to award to the appellant in that case a further amount of Rs.50,000/- towards the building value. Hence we award the appellant in L.A.A.No.1296 of 2010 a further amount of Rs.50,000/- towards the building value. All the appeals will stand allowed to the above extent. In these appeals we are inclined to award proportionate costs also to the appellants. Hence appeals are allowed to the above extent with proportionate costs. It is needless to mention that on the total compensation refixed under this judgment, the appellant will be entitled for statutory benefits admissible under Section 23 5 L.A.A.Nos.1296 of 2010, 211 of 2011 and 349 of 2011 (2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. In L.A.A.No.349 of 2011 corresponding to L.A.R.No.73 of 2008 alone the appellant therein will be entitled to the benefit admissible under Section 23(1)A also. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ami/