High Court Kerala High Court

Cherukunnon Kandoth Kunhikannan vs The Special Tahsildar on 21 May, 2010

Kerala High Court
Cherukunnon Kandoth Kunhikannan vs The Special Tahsildar on 21 May, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

LA.App..No. 504 of 2004()


1. CHERUKUNNON KANDOTH KUNHIKANNAN,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. LAKSHMI, D/O. KESAVAN,
3. BALAN, S/O. KESAVAN, OTTAPPURAYIL HOUSE,

                        Vs



1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, L.A.,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM

 Dated :21/05/2010

 O R D E R
        PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
                 ----------------------------------

                   L.A.A. No.504 of 2004

                 ----------------------------------

              Dated this the 21st day of May, 2010


                       J U D G M E N T

———————-

Pius C.Kuriakose,J.

The claimants are in appeal. This appeal is confined to

the claim for enhanced compensation for the building which

existed on the property. The claim is limited to Rs.25,000/-.

Total compensation which was awarded by the Land

Acquisition Officer was Rs.1,38,407/-. The claim for

enhanced compensation for building was disallowed on the

reason that the claimants did not adduce any evidence.

Sri.Gracious Kuriakose, learned counsel for appellants

submitted that the claimant was not able to take out a

commission since he was abruptly dispossessed of the

building. We cannot blame the learned Subordinate Judge in

not having found that evidence in the case falls short of

holding that the compensation awarded for the building is

inadequate. But we notice that the Land Acquisition Officer

awarded compensation for building on the basis of valuation

by PWD authorities. It is a matter of common knowledge that

LAA.504/2004-A 2

construction of buildings in accordance with PWD schedule

of rates is not a pragmatic proposition. Even the PWD is

tendering out its works at 25-35% above their published

rates. Keeping that in mind, we are of the view that we are

justified in awarding at least Rs.25,000/- more to the

appellants and we do so. Appeal is allowed in full.

Rs.25,000/- more is awarded. The appellants will be entitled

for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(1A),

23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. But parties are

directed to suffer their respective costs.

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE.

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.

okb