Case: State of Kerala Vs. Chakala Lonoppan Palu (Dead) By L.Rs

2. The litigation turns on the quantum of compensation awarded to the owner of the land in a case of compulsory acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Acquisition Officer awarded a certain sum which was raised substantially in the court. Both sides filed appeals to the High Court which, while dismissing the appeals of the State, enhanced the compensation by a small sum of around Rs. 13, 000. The total compensation payable, according to the High Courts judgment, was of the order of Rs. 12 lacs. Many points were urged in support of the contention that there had been a grossby the Court. We are unable to agree for the short reason that this Court cannot be persuaded to reappraise the evidence or, indeed, to interfere except in those special cases where some principle has been violated or gross injustice perpetrated. We are unable to discern any, despite the strenuous argument of learned counsel for the State.3. Contentions such as award of a higher percentage for timber waste, a small increase in price for cement, a small percentage for the architect or for supervision, are such as which we cannot entertain and so reject as virtually out of bounds for this Court.

Court's reasoning:
The general proposition laid down there is unexceptionable that the older the building the lesser the value. Time spares none. Depreciation, in such circumstances, is a necessary consequence, but then this is not an inflexible rule regardless of the realism of things. Speaking generally, and with a practical sense, builders of homes move in when they are barely ready for occupation, and spend the first months and years to beautify, touch up, tune up, make the edifice liveable and lovable. These years enhance theof the house rather than depreciate its value. There may be exceptions where engineering blunders, defects showing up, gross neglect damaging the structure or its finishing may reduce the value. Such deterioration being the exception, the depreciation must be made out and not presumed. In these circumstances, the mere fact that after the house was completed about 5 years had elapsed, could not justify the claim that, mechanically, depreciation must be awarded. We do not think there is any error of law in the judgment of the High Court.