IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 2195 of 2008()
1. MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.S.D.ASOKAN
For Respondent :SRI.J.HARIKUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :19/01/2010
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
----------------------------------
L.A.A. No.2195 of 2008
----------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of January, 2010
J U D G M E N T
———————
Pius C.Kuriakose,J.
Claimants are the appellants. The appeal is
confined to the compensation payable for the building. The
building which existed on the acquired property was a
commercial building with six rooms. Claimants were the co-
owners and they were entitled for 4 out of 6 rooms. The one
ground which is seriously urged in the memorandum of
appeal is that learned Sub Judge under the impugned
judgment awarded an enhanced compensation of Rs.20,000/-
to claimant Nos:1 and 3 to 7 who together were entitled for
1/3rd of the value of 2 rooms, were awarded enhanced
compensation of Rs.30,000/- by the learned Sub Judge while
the appellants were awarded (who were entitled for a value
of 4 rooms) only a total amount of Rs.20,000/-. There is no
justification for the above discrimination. Learned counsel
for the appellant submitted that the only reason stated by the
learned Sub Judge is that teakwood has been used for the
L.A.A.2195/08-C
2
construction of the building, portion belonging to claimant
No.2. The argument of the learned counsel is that the
building was constructed by the predecessor in interest of all
the claimants at one time using the same materials and
hence, there is no justification for the discriminatory
treatment meted out by the learned Sub Judge. Mr. Basant
Balaji, senior Government Pleader would submit that though
it is true that the entire building was constructed by the
common predecessor in interest of the parties, the buildings
were considerably improved after the same came under the
co-ownership of the various claimants. Building portion
belonging to claimant No:2 had been considerably improved
i.e, in relation to the portion belonging to the appellant.
2. We have considered the rival submissions. While
we are able to approve the action of the learned Sub Judge in
having awarded better compensation for the building portion
belonging to claimant No.2 we feel that the learned Sub
Judge was too miserly in awarding compensation for the
building portion belonging to the appellant since the building
was constructed by one person at same time. The main
structure was originally one. We are of the view that the
appellant ought to have been awarded at least Rs.50,000/- as
L.A.A.2195/08-C
3
enhanced compensation by the learned Sub Judge while they
have been awarded only Rs.20,000/-. Therefore we are
inclined to award further amount of Rs.30,000- over and
above what was awarded under the impugned judgment to
the appellants as compensation for the building. Appeal
stands allowed to the above extent. It is needless to mention
that for the sum of Rs.30,000/- which is being awarded as
additional compensation for the structure, the appellants will
be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section
23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act.
We allow the appeal to the above extent but without
any order as to costs.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
okb