IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 1427 of 2003()
1. P.P. KURIACHAN, S/O. PATHROSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA STATE REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. KOCHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SOCIETY,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :30/06/2009
O R D E R
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
------------------------
L.A.A.No.1427 OF 2003
------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of June, 2009
JUDGMENT
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.
This is an appeal by the claimant, who is aggrieved by the
award of the land acquisition reference court. The acquisition
was for the purpose of International Airport at Nedumbassery.
On the land under acquisition there existed a residential building
and structures belonging to the appellant. The land acquisition
officer awarded total amount of Rs.3,46,000/- towards value of
the building and structures obviously on the basis of PWD
valuation. The evidence on the side of the claimant, in the
context of his claim for enhancement towards structures,
consisted of Ext.C1 commission report submitted by an advocate
who revalued the building with the assistance of an engineer.
The advocate commissioner was examined as AW2. The learned
Subordinate Judge was not impressed by the advocate
commissioner’s report and hence did not place any reliance on
the recommendation of the commissioner. Ultimately, what the
LAA.No.1427/2003 2
learned Subordinate Judge did was to grant enhancement by
45% over the land value and not to award any enhancement
towards value of structures.
2. We have heard the submissions of Sri.Vinod
Ravindranath, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant,
Smt.T.N.Girija, learned Standing Counsel for the second
respondent requisitioning authority and those of Sri.Bijoy
Chandran, learned Government Pleader for the first respondent.
3. Sri.Vinod Ravindranth argued that the court below was
not justified in completely discarding the commission report. He
pointed out that there was no counter oral evidence at all on the
side of the Government and the requisitioning authority. He
submitted that the commissioner, who prepared Ext.C1 report as
well as another commissioner, who had been deputed by the Civil
Court in earlier case, had uniformly recommended value of
Rs.7,00,000/- towards the building. He, therefore, argued that
at least 7,00,000/- should be fixed as the correct market value
of the building.
LAA.No.1427/2003 3
4. Submissions of Sri. Vinod Ravindranath were all stiffly
resisted by Smt.T.N.Girija, learned Standing Counsel and
Sri.Basant Balaji, learned Government Pleader.
5. Having gone through the impugned judgment and having
considered the submissions, we are of the view that the learned
Subordinate Judge was justified in not placing reliance on the
advocate commissioner’s report. However, we notice that it is
by adopting the PWD schedule of rates that the land acquisition
officer valued the building. It is well known that it is not a
pragmatic proposition to construct building in accordance with
the PWD schedule of rate. It is also well known that even the
PWD tenders its work at 20 to 30% above its own schedule of
rates. Taking that aspects of matter into account, we are of the
view that the appellant is entitled for enhanced value towards
structures which existed on the acquired property to the extent
of Rs.1,00,000/-. Accordingly, we award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
towards structure value over and above what was awarded by the
land acquisition officer.
The appeal will stand allowed to the above extent. But, in
LAA.No.1427/2003 4
the circumstances parties will suffer their own costs. It is
needless to mention that the appellant will be entitled for all
statutory benefits admissible in law.
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE
P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE
dpk