IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2011 / 24TH JYAISHTA 1933 LA.App..No. 601 of 2001(A) -------------------------- LAR.175/1996 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, N.PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA. BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SMT.LATHA T.THANKAPPAN RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT: ------------------------------------- THRESSIA, W/O.THOMAS, THENGUPURAKKAL, ELOOR SOUTH. ADV. SRI.V.SANKARA RAJA THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/06/2011 ALONG WITH CROSS OBJECTION NO.2 OF 2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- L.A.A.No.601 of 2001 and Cross Objection No.2 of 2006 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of June, 2011 Judgment Pius C.Kuriakose, J. As we find that neither the Government nor the requisitioning authority can have any legitimate grievance regarding the compensation redetermined by the learned Subordinate Judge, we dismiss the appeal L.A.A.No.601 of 2001 straightway. 2. Under the award passed by the reference court, the land value has been refixed at Rs.11,250/- per Are. Mr.V.Sankara Raja, learned counsel for the claimant-cross objector drew our attention to Ext.A3 judgment. He submitted that Ext.A3 pertains to acquisition of identical lands situated in close proximately to the land under acquisition in this appeal. We find that Ext.A3 was considered by the learned Subordinate Judge also. But the learned Subordinate Judge did not become inclined to rely on Ext.A3 for the reason that Ext.A3 pertains to a different Section 4 (1) notification. It is fairly conceded before us by Smt.Latha LAA 601/01 & CR. OBJ.2/06 2 T.Thankappan, learned Senior Government Pleader that Ext.A3 as well as the present acquisition were made pursuant to the very same Section 4(1) notification. Under these circumstances, we follow Ext.A3 and refix the land value at Rs.12,500/- per Are. 3. Now, we shall deal with the claim for enhancement towards value of improvements. Under the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the cross-objector was given Rs.2,13,996/- towards the value of improvements. Before the court below he took out a commission who recommended that the correct market value of improvements will be Rs.4,51,729/-. The learned Subordinate Judge discarded the Commissioner's report stating the reason that what was produced by the claimant was only the certified copy of the report and not the original of the report. According to the learned Judge, the certified copy being the secondary evidence cannot be relied upon. Even though we are unable to approve the reasoning adopted by the learned Subordinate Judge for discarding the Commissioner's report, we are not inclined to rely on the Commissioner's report because the evidence adduced by the Commissioner was not in conformity with the report. Thus the report could not have been relied on. LAA 601/01 & CR. OBJ.2/06 3 4. At the same time, we feel that there is justification for granting reasonable enhancement to the cross-objector towards value of improvements. A substantial portion of the value of improvements include value of a building which existed in the property. This building was got valued by the Land Acquisition Authority through the Engineers of the Public Works Department. Obviously, they followed the P.W.D.Schedule of rates. It is matter of common knowedge that construction of building in accordance with the P.W.D.Schedule of rates is not a pragmatic proposition. Keeping that principle in mind, we award to the cross-objector a further sum of Rs.74,896/- as additional compensation towards value of building and improvements. It is needless to mention that on the total refixed compensation to which the cross- objector becomes eligible by virtue of this judgment, he will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. As regards the interest under Section 28, we clarify that the same includes solatium component also. The cross-objector has a complaint that on the original compensation fixed by the reference court, i.e. at Rs.11,250/- per Are, though the same has paid, she was LAA 601/01 & CR. OBJ.2/06 4 not paid interest on solatium that was due to her. We make it clear that even that compensation will attract interest under Section 28, but such interest will cease to run from the date of deposit or payment of the amount. The Cross Objection is allowed as above, however, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. srd LAA 601/01 & CR. OBJ.2/06 5 LAA 601/01 & CR. OBJ.2/06 6