IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931 LA.App..No. 155 of 2004() ------------------------- LAR.67/1999 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANT: -------------- MEETHIAN IBRAHIM, MOKKATHU HOUSE, ALUVA KARA, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.ABOOBACKER(EDAPPALLY) RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. SENIOR GOVT.PLEADER MS.LATHA T.THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ---------------------------------- L.A.A. No.155 of 2004 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Pius C.Kuriakose,J. Claimant is in appeal. His land and building were acquired for the construction of a parallel bridge to Marthandavarma Bridge at Aluva. This appeal is confined to the question of the correct compensation payable to the appellant for the building which existed on the property that was acquired. For the building the Land Acquisition Officer awarded total amount of Rs.4,82,589/-. Before the reference court the appellant/claimant relied on Ext.A2 commission report and Ext.A3 copy of the plaint. Under Ext.A2 the Advocate Commissioner had recommended for a much higher value. The court below however did not become inclined to place reliance on Ext.A2 for the reason that though AW2 commissioner was examined and the Engineer who assisted him was not examined. Since the evidence of the commissioner was that the valuation of the building was done only by the Engineer we feel as the learned Sub Judge felt, that it was necessary that the appellant examined the Engineer also. The learned Subordinate Judge did not grant any enhancement L.A.A.155/04-C 2 for the building for the reason of non examination of the Engineer. While we are in a position to approve the action of the learned Sub Judge in not relying on Ext.A2 we feel that the learned Sub Judge could have awarded some more compensation. It is obviously on the basis of PWD schedule of rates that the buildings were got valued by the L.A authority. It is a matter of common knowledge that construction of buildings in accordance with PWD schedule of rates is not a pragmatic proposition. Even the PWD is tendering out its works at 30-35% above their published rates. Keeping that in mind, we are of the view that there is justification for awarding enhanced compensation to the appellant. We award a further amount of Rs.1,68,950/- to the appellant over and above what is awarded by the L.A Officer and the reference court. We make it clear that for the additional amount that we are awarding the appellant/claimant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. The appeal is allowed to the above extent but without any order as to costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb