IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2011 / 24TH ASHADHA 1933 LA.App..No. 1591 of 2009() -------------------------- LAR.109/2007 of SUB COURT, PALA .................... APPELLANT/CLAIMANT ---------------------------------- SOLLY ABRAHAM, D/O. ABRAHAM, KAYAPLACKAL, THALAPPALAM, ERATTUPETTA. BY ADVS. SMT.S.K.DEVI SRI.SANTHOSH P.ABRAHAM RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT -------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.JOSEPHINA THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------- L.A.A.No.1591 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of July, 2011. J U D G M E N T PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. The claimant is in appeal. Her property in Erattupetta Village which was acquired pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 30.6.2004 for the purpose of widening of the Ettumannoor-Poonjar State Highway. The property was dry land and the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value @ Rs.23,109/- per are relying on the basis document. Before the reference court, the appellant had claims for enhancement in the land value, compensation for injurious eviction of the unacquired property and also for enhancement in the structure value. The reference court did not award any enhancement towards the structure value. Reference court found that the unacquired property had been injuriously affected to a certain extent. Instead of fixing the percentage of injurious eviction, the court below 2 L.A.A.No.1591 of 2011 awarded a lump sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for injurious eviction. In support of the claim for enhancement in the land value, the appellant relied mostly on Exts.A6 and A8. Ext.A6, a pre-notification document dated 26.4.1995, was discarded on the reason that the same relates to a tiny bit. We approve the action of the learned Sub Judge in having discarded Ext.A6. Ext.A8 was again a pre- notification document reflecting land value at Rs.1,20,000/- per cent. This document executed some 7 years prior to the notification in respect of land situated not far away from the acquired property, was discarded by the learned Sub Judge for the reason that the purchaser a co-operative society was keen on purchasing the property and hence paid a fancy price. We are in a position to approve the action of the learned Sub Judge in not having awarded the value reflected in Ext.A8 also. Ultimately what the learned Sub Judge did was, to do guess work and to re-fix the land value at Rs.45,000/- per are, referring certain earlier judgments in respect of land in the same village. Having reappraised 3 L.A.A.No.1591 of 2011 the evidence, we feel that the learned Sub Judge was a little miserly in fixing the market value. However, on the basis of evidence which is available, we fix the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs.55,000/- per are. 2. The same is the position as regards the compensation for injurious eviction determined by the reference court. According to us, the appellant could have been awarded Rs.10,000/- more than what is awarded by the reference court. We award to the appellant Rs.10,000/- more as further compensation for injurious eviction. 3. The learned Sub Judge did not awarded any compensation towards the structure value, and the reasoning was that no acceptable legal evidence was adduced by the appellant. It is true that acceptable legal evidence was not adduced by the appellant regarding the structure value. But the building in question was valued by the Land Acquisition authority which awarded a total sum of Rs.1,78,079/-, adopting the PWD schedule of rates. It is a matter of common knowledge that construction of buildings 4 L.A.A.No.1591 of 2011 on the PWD schedule of rates is not a pragmatic proposition. Even the PWD, tenders out its civil works at 30 to 35 % more than its own published schedule of rates. Taking this aspect into account, we award the appellant Rs.53,425/- as additional compensation towards structure value. The appeal stands allowed to the above extent. The appellant will be entitled for statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23 (1) A and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on the total re-fixed compensation. The appeal is allowed. However, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. The Registry will issue decree copy to the appellant only after ensuring payment of the full court fee due upon appeal memorandum. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ami/