IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 934 of 2009()
1. THOMAS,S/O.PAILY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE LEGAL OFFICER (SECRETARIAL),
For Petitioner :SRI.T.A.SHAJI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :14/09/2009
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
------------------------------------------------
L. A. A. No.934 of 2009
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of September, 2009
JUDGMENT
Pius C. Kuriakose, J
The claimant is in appeal being not satisfied by
the award of the Land Acquisition Reference Court.
The acquisition was for the purpose of Kochi Refineries
Ltd. pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on
04/11/2000. The property was situated in
Thiruvaniyoor village. The Land Acquisition Officer
awarded land value at the rate of Rs.34,800/- per Are.
Ext.A1 was the only tangible item of evidence
produced by the appellant in support of the claim for
enhancement in land value. Ext.A1 was relied on and
proportionate increase was given. Thus, the land value
L. A. A. No.934 of 2009 -2-
was re-fixed at Rs.45,818/- per Are. For the
structures, the appellant was awarded a total amount
of Rs.1,30,807/- by the Land Acquisition Officer. A
commissioner’s report was relied on. The court below
was not very much impressed by the Commissioner’s
Report or by the oral evidence adduced by the
appellant. Thus, no enhancement was granted towards
value of structures.
2. We have heard submissions of T.A.Shaji, the
learned counsel for the appellant, Smt.Thushara
James for the Requisitioning Authority/Kochi Refineries
Ltd. and Sri.Basant Balaji, the learned Senior
Government Pleader. Sri.Shaji would argue that the
court below should have awarded land value at
Rs.55,000/- per Are. We cannot accept the above
argument. Ext.A1, as already indicated, was the only
L. A. A. No.934 of 2009 -3-
item of tangible evidence. Ext.A1 was relied on and
the maximum value which could have been granted
based on Ext.A1 is granted.
3. But we find that there is an element of
genuineness in the grievance voiced by the appellant
regarding the compensation awarded for the
structures. May be, the Advocate Commissioners
Report was not convincing. Even then, it is well known
that construction of buildings in accordance with PWD
schedule of rates is not a pragmatic proposition. We
feel that there is justification for granting at least 20%
increase on the building value taking into account the
ground realities. Accordingly, in modification of the
award of the Reference Court, we award a further
amount of Rs.26,160/- towards value of structures.
L. A. A. No.934 of 2009 -4-
4. The appeal will stand allowed to the above
extent only. It is needless to mention that for the total
enhanced compensation to which the appellant
becomes eligible by virtue of this judgment he will be
entitled for statutory benefits admissible under law.
Parties are directed to suffer their costs.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
K. SURENDRA MOHAN
JUDGE
kns/-