IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 405 of 2009()
1. SECRETARY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KHADER C.K., S/O. KUNJUMUHAMMED,
... Respondent
2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ
For Respondent :SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :03/02/2010
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
--------------------------------------------------------
LAA. No. 405 of 2009 & C.O. No. 43 of 2009
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.
The Panchayat has come up in appeal against the
award of enhanced compensation for the buildings which
existed on the property under acquisition. The claimant has
filed a memorandum of cross objection contending that the
compensation awarded by the reference court is not
adequate. The land acquisition officer awarded a total
amount of Rs.1,23,370/- obviously adopting the PWD
schedule of rates for valuation. Before the reference court
the cross objector claimant took out a commission. The
commissioner was assisted by a Chartered Engineer and
approved valuer. He submitted Ext.A1(b) valuation
statement which was accepted by the Commissioner and
produced along with the commissioner’s report. As per
Ext.A1(b) a total amount of Rs.4,10,000/- is recommended
LAA.405/09 & CO. 43/09
– 2 –
as the value of the buildings. Before the reference court the
Chartered Engineer was examined as AW2 and the
Commissioner’s report was marked as Ext.C1. The court
below was not inspired by A1(b) valuation report or by the
testimony of AW2. The court below however, noticed that in
A1(b) report no depreciation had been made. However,
taking into account the fact that the two shop rooms which
accounted for substantial portion of the buildings were
constructed just one year earlier, the court below would
obviously on the basis of guess work fix value of the
building at Rs.2,50,000/-. In the appeal preferred by the
Panchayat they assail such fixation as excessive and
arbitrary. In the memorandum of cross objection the
claimant contends that Ext.A1(b) valuation report should
have been accepted and the full value recommended in A1
(b) that is, Rs.4,10,000/- should have been awarded.
Sri.T.H.Abdul Azeez, learned counsel for the appellant would
LAA.405/09 & CO. 43/09
– 3 –
argue on the basis of Ext.C1 report and A1(b) valuation
statement that atleast the sum of Rs.4,10,000/- should have
been awarded.
2. We have considered the rival submissions. We have
gone through Exts.C1 and A1(b). We are in agreement with
the learned Subordinate Judge that A1(b) valuation report is
not a convincing one. We notice from A1(b) that what the
Engineer has done is to value the building not on the basis
of the measurements and other details recorded during
inspection, but to calculate the total cost on the basis that
the construction cost is Rs.7000/- per sq. metre. We are
also therefore not impressed much by A1(b) report in terms
of which only AW2 has given his evidence. At the same
time, we feel that there was justification for awarding
enhancement of compensation for the building since
obviously the L.A. Officer valued the building on the basis of
the PWD schedule rates. We notice that the PWD is
LAA.405/09 & CO. 43/09
– 4 –
tendering its civil works at rates higher than their published
rates. We also notice that the shop rooms in question were
relatively new constructions. Taking both those
circumstances into account, we modify the judgment and
decree of the learned Subordinate Judge to the extent the
same pertains to value of the buildings and refix the value
of the building at Rs.2 lakhs.
Appeal stands allowed as above. Cross objection
stands dismissed. Needless to mention that the claimant
cross objector will be entitled to all statutory benefits on the
enhancement as refixed under this judgment.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE
ksv/-