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 3RD NOVEMBER 2009 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1931 LA.App..No. 1199 of 2009(D) --------------------------- LAR.79/2006 of SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT NO.1. ---------------------------- IBRAHIM,S/O.BAVA,PUTHANPURAKUDIYIL, MULAVOOR VILLOAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) SRI.PRASANTH M.P RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSTP DIVISION, MUVATTUPUZHA. SR.GOVT. PLEADER SMT. LATHA T.THAKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------ LAA. No. 1199 of 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this appeal preferred by the claimant is the award of the Land Acquisition Reference Court to the extent it pertains to the compensation awarded for the building which existed on the property under acquisition. The acquisition was for widening of M.C. Road. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 30- 6-2003. Towards value of the building which existed on the property the L.A. Officer awarded Rs.64,422/-. Before the reference court the evidence consisted of the Advocate Commissioner's report and the testimony of AWs. 2 and 3 Advocate Commissioner and the expert who assisted the commissioner. The Commissioner had recommended that value of building be fixed at Rs.1,32,512/-. The court below however, did not become inclined to place any reliance on LAA. No. 1199/09 - 2 - the commissioner's report. The court below after rejecting the commissioner's report and the evidence of the commissioner and the expert awarded a nominal additional compensation of Rs.12,884/-. 2. Having considered the submissions of Mr.Bindu Sasthamangalam, learned counsel for the appellant and those of Smt.Latha T.Thankappan, learned senior Govt. Pleader and having made a quick survey of the evidence available on record we are of the view that the court below was justified in not placing reliance on the Advocate Commissioner's report. At the same time, we feel that the learned Judge was a little miserly in re-fixing compensation due for the building. At least on the principle that the construction of buildings according to the PWD schedule of rates is not a pragmatic proposition the appellant could have been awarded roughly 35% of what was awarded by the L.A. Officer. Taking that view of the matter we are inclined LAA. No. 1199/09 - 3 - to award a further amount of Rs.10,000/- over and above what was granted by the Reference Court to the appellant towards value of building which existed on the property. Accordingly, we award Rs.10,000/- allowing the present appeal. It is needless to mention that the appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits on the above amount as ordered under this judgment admissible under Sections 23 (1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE ksv/-