IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2009 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1931 LA.App..No. 762 of 2001() ------------------------- LAR.203/1996 of SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT : CLAIMANT -------------- KORA ULAHANNAN, AGED 72 YEARS. NEDUMPURATHU HOUSE, PAMBAKKUDA, ONAKKOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. ADDL. APPELLANTS 2 TO 7 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT. 1.2.06 IN IA 1689/05. ADDL.R.2. MARIYAM, AGED 73, W/O. LATE KORA ULAHANNAN, NEDUMPURATHU HOUSE, PAMBAKKUDA, ONAKKOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. 3. SARAMMA, AGED 58, D/O. LATE KORA ULAHANNAN, NEDUMPURATHU HOUSE, PAMBAKKUDA, ONAKKOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. 4. MARY, AGED 54, D/O.LATE KORA ULAHANNAN, NEDUMPURATHU HOUSE, PAMBAKKUDA, ONAKKOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. 5. SKARIA, AGED 52, S/O. LATE KORA ULAHANNAN, NEDUMPURATHU HOUSE, PAMBAKKUDA, ONAKKOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. 6. GRACY, AGED 46, D/O.LATE KORA ULAHANNAN, NEDUMPURATHU HOUSE, PAMBAKKUDA, ONAKKOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. 7. ROY, S/O. LATE KORA ULAHANNAN, NEDUMPURATHU HOUSE, PAMBAKKUDA, ONAKKOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK BY ADV. SRI.T.KURIAKOSE PETER SRI.ABRAHAM P.GEORGE RESPONDENT : RESPONDENT --------------- STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), M V I P, ANCHALPETTY. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI BASANT BALAJI. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. --------------------------------------------- L.A.A. 762 Of 2001 --------------------------------------------- Dated: JUNE 8, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J. In this appeal by the claimant, the grievance mainly voiced is that the reference court has turned down the appellant's claim for further compensation towards the value of improvements, particularly the building which existed on the acquired property. 2. We have heard the submissions of Smt.Lakshmi, advocate representing the learned counsel for the appellant, and those Sri Basant Balaji, learned Senior Government Pleader. 3. Smt.Lakshmi,, has addressed us very seriously on the basis of the various grounds raised in the appeal. Our attention was drawn by her to the various documents, particularly to Exts.A2 and A3 valuation report and plan submitted by AW.3, the engineer who assisted the advocate-commissioner who submitted Exts.A5 and A5(a) commission report and sketch. According to her, the court below should have accepted Exts.A2 and A3 and L.A.A. 762 Of 2001 2 awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,25,995/- recommended by the expert engineer. According to the learned counsel, the land acquisition officer blindly followed the valuation report prepared by the assistant engineer of the State PWD, which was based on the PWD schedule of rates. Learned counsel argued that it will not be possible to construct buildings by the PWD schedule of rates. 4. Sri Basant Balaji, larned Sr. Government Pleader, resisted the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and supported the impugned judgment. He submitted that the advocate-commissioner and the engineer who assisted him had conducted the inspection without notice to the State. According to him, it has been correctly found by the court below that it is not the acquired property which was visited by the advocate- commissioner and the expert. 5. We have anxiously considered the rival submissions and we have made a re-appraisal of the evidence. We are not very much impressed by the argument of the learned Sr. Government Pleader and the suggestion of the reference court that it is some other property which has been visited by the advocate- L.A.A. 762 Of 2001 3 commissioner and the expert. We are convinced that the valuation submitted by the expert engineer, who assisted the advocate-commissioner, pertains to the building and other structures which existed on the acquired property itself. Both the commissioner as well as the expert engineer were examined as witnesses. It was not suggested to either of them in cross- examination that it was some other property which was inspected by them. In fact, going by the tenor of the cross-examination of AW.2, the challenge by the Government Pleader in the court below was regarding the adoption of local rates in preference to PWD schedule of rates for determining the value of the building. While we agree with the court below that Exts.A2 and A3 cannot be given much probative value since the inspection leading to them was without notice to the Government and Exts.A2 and A3 have not been properly proved, we are of the view that in view of the admission by the Government that the valuation adopted by the land acquisition officer was based on PWD schedule of rates, atleast 20% enhancement can be granted to the appellant over the compensation awarded to him by the land acquisition officer. After all, it is a matter of common knowledge that it is not L.A.A. 762 Of 2001 4 practical to construct buildings on PWD schedule of rates and that the PWD itself tenders out its construction works at rates 30% or even 40% higher than its own schedule of rates. Accordingly, allowing the appeal in part, we order that the appellant is entitled for additional compensation towards the value of the building and other structures, to the extent of Rs.32,500/-. The appellant is awarded that amount by way of additional compensation. It is needless to mention that the additional compensation awarded under this judgment over and above what is awarded under the impugned judgment towards value of land will carry all statutory benefits admissible under secs.23(2), 23(1A) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. In the circumstances, the parties are directed to suffer their costs in the appeal. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mt/- L.A.A. 762 Of 2001 5 PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------ L.A.A. 762 Of 2001 JUDGMENT ------------------------------ 8.6.2009