IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2011 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1933 LA.App..No. 1236 of 2010(D) ---------------------------------- LAR.87/2006 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ------------------------------- M.J.MONSEE, MATTATHIL HOUSE, KANAYANNOOR, P.O.CHOTTANIKKARA. BY ADVS. SRI.P.P.THAMPI SRI.SOMAN P.PAUL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), RAILWAYS, ERNAKULAM - 682 016. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, ERNAKULAM - 682 016. R1 BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT. T.T.JOSEPHINA R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.C.CHERIAN,SR.SC.,RAILWAYS THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = L.A.A. NO. 1236 OF 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2011. J U D G M E N T N.K. Balakrishnan, J. The claimant is in appeal. This appeal is directed only against the compensation which is said to be inadequate, in respect of the building which existed in the property. The building was valued by the Land Acquisition Officer at Rs.4,63,448/-. The claimant filed an appeal before this Court. This Court remanded the matter to decide the matter afresh after giving opportunity to the claimant to adduce further evidence. After remand at the request of the claimant/appellant an expert engineer was appointed by the Court below who filed Ext.C1 report. He was examined as AW1. The Court below L.A.A. NO. 1236 OF 2010 -:2:- after appreciating the evidence was not inclined to accept that report. However finding that the building value was assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer following the P.W.D. rate and that the value so assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer would be far less than the actual value an enhancement by 30% was allowed by the Court below and thus building value was refixed at Rs.6,02,482/-. 2. Learned counsel Sri. P.P.Thambi appearing for the appellant submits that the Court below was not justified in discarding Ext.C1 report especially because it was prepared by a retired engineer who prepared a valuation statement taking note of the materials used for the construction of the building as have been mentioned in the statement prepared by the Land Acquisition Officer. It is also pointed out L.A.A. NO. 1236 OF 2010 -:3:- that the building was a brand new one, only 5 years old, and as such the Court below could have accepted the Commissioner's report and allowed the amount as reported by the Advocate Commissioner. This submission has been strongly resisted by Smt.Asha, learned counsel for the requisitioning authority. She would submit that the learned Subordinate Judge has rightly refixed the land value and granted enhancement at 30% which is far in excess and as such no further enhancement can be given. Smt.Asha would further point out that there is no justification in the contention raised by the claimant that the reports submitted by the Commissioner has to be accepted since the Commissioner had no occasion to see the building in question as it had already been demolished. It is further submitted that the report was L.A.A. NO. 1236 OF 2010 -:4:- submitted only on guess work and no data was furnished by the engineer to show what was the price of the materials which were used for the construction of the building. 3. Learned counsel, Sri.P.P.Thambi would rely upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2009 S.C. 2238 (Mahesh Dattatray Thiruthkar v. State of Maharashtra) and submit that only because the expert engineer did not see the building and did not produce the price list of the articles used for the construction of the building, his report cannot be simply ignored. Learned counsel further submits that since the engineer has sufficient experience there could be no difficulty for him to report what was the labour charges at the relevant time and also as to the price of the materials used for the construction of the L.A.A. NO. 1236 OF 2010 -:5:- building. However since those materials were not produced along with the report submitted by him it is not safe to accept the report. However considering the fact that the building was only 5 years old we are of the considered view that a further sum of Rs.40,000/- can be granted as compensation. It is allowed accordingly. It is made clear that this enhanced sum of Rs.40,000/- will not carry interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act for the period from 27.9.07 till 27.1.2010. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. Sd/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. Sd/- N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/- [ True copy ] P.S. to Judge.