IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2009 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 LA.App..No. 786 of 2003() ------------------------- LAR.151/1999 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, NORTH PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT: ----------------------- YOHANNAN, S/O. KUNJUVAREED, POOVELI HOUSE, NAYATHODUKARA, ANGAMALY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.O.XAVIER RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/ADDL.2ND RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. KOCHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SOCIETY, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, ANGAMALY. ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SC, KIAS LTD. FOR R2 GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.R.DEEPA FOR R1 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------ LAA. No. 786 of 2003 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J. This appeal is preferred by the claimant who is aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the reference court confirming the compensation which was awarded to him by the L.A. Officer for the structures which existed on the property under acquisition. The property under acquisition was an extent of 25.57 Ares of land together with the structures and improvements thereon. The acquisition was for the purpose of the Cochin International Airport Society, the second respondent. When this appeal came up before us, the learned senior counsel for the second respondent pointed out that this appeal is to be summarily rejected in view of the judgment of this court in LAA. No. 923/03 which was an appeal preferred by the second respondent against the impugned judgment itself. LAA. No. 786/03 - 2 - According to the learned senior counsel, the impugned judgment has already merged with the appellate judgment in LAA. No. 923/03 and hence the present appeal cannot be entertained any longer. The submissions of the learned senior counsel for the second respondent were attractive and therefore we directed the counsel for the appellant to convince us regarding the maintainability of the present appeal. He submitted that the present appeal is confined to the question of compensation to be awarded for the structures which existed on the property under acquisition while the earlier appeal LAA. No. 923/03 was confined to the question of the land value only. The learned senior counsel for the second respondent would quickly retort and draw our attention to the memorandum of appeal pertaining to LAA. No. 923/03 which was also made available before us. It has been clearly provided in the judgment in LAA. 923/03 that but for the interference in the matter of land value, in all other respects (including the aspect of refusal by the LAA. No. 786/03 - 3 - reference court to award any enhanced compensation for building) the reference court judgment was specifically confirmed by this court. Mr.T.O. Xavier, counsel for the appellant would submit in reply that the present appeal was instituted even earlier to LAA. No. 923/03 and therefore it is not proper to say that the present appeal is bad. 2. We have anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. The argument of the learned senior counsel for the requisitioning authority that the judgment in LAA. No. 923/03 would bar entertainment of the present appeal on principles of merger and constructive res judicata is not completely unattractive. May be the earlier appeal was confined to the question of land value , but the present appellant was a party to that appeal and ordinarily if the present appellant was having grievance regarding the adequacy of the compensation given for the building he should have agitated that issue in that appeal itself by lodging a memorandum of cross objection. But in this case, LAA. No. 786/03 - 4 - we notice that the present appeal confined to the question of compensation for building was already on file when LAA. No.923/03 was being decided by this court. This is why we are inclined to hold that the present appeal is liable to be considered on merits notwithstanding the judgment in LAA. No. 923/03. Ideally, the present appeal should have been consolidated with LAA. No. 923/03 and decided by a common judgment. According to us, the present appellant himself is to blame more, for not having facilitated such a consolidation and joint decision, for which he should pay a penalty. 3. The appellants claim for enhancement in the value of structures and improvements was based on Exts.A2 and A3 and the oral evidence of AWs. 2 and 3. On going through the impugned judgment we find that excellent reasons have been stated by the learned Subordinate Judge for not placing reliance on those items of evidence. We approve the action of the learned Subordinate Judge in not accepting LAA. No. 786/03 - 5 - the appellant's claim for a total compensation of Rs.7 lakhs as value of the buildings on the basis of AW2 and AW3. 4. At the same time, we are of the view that there is justification for granting some more compensation to the appellant for the buildings which existed on the property under acquisition. For these structures the total value awarded by the LAO was Rs.2,53,400/-. Evidently, these structures were valued by the land acquisition authority by adopting the PWD schedule of rates. It is a matter of common knowledge that construction of buildings in accordance with those rates is not a pragmatic proposition. Even the PWD is tendering out it's civil works at 30 to 40% above it's own rates. Keeping that aspect of the matter in mind, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs.75,000/- more as compensation for structures. We award Rs.75,000/- to the appellant as additional compensation for the structures which existed on the property. This amount will carry all statutory benefits LAA. No. 786/03 - 6 - admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. However, for the latches on the part of the appellant in not facilitating adjudication of the present appeal along with the appeal preferred by the requisitioning authority we order that on the above amount interest under section 28 of the LA Act will not accrue during the period from 3-12-2007 till 15-12-2009. Appeal is allowed to the above extent, but in the circumstances,without any order as to costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE ksv/- LAA. No. 786/03 - 7 - PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. LAA. No. 786 OF 2003 JUDGMENT 15th December, 2009