IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA App No. 1432 of 2000(C)
1. SIVARAMAN NAIR
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :.
For Respondent :SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID
Dated :29/10/2007
O R D E R
KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ.
-----------------------------------------
L.A.A. NO. 1432 OF 2000
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of October, 2007.
J U D G M E N T
Kurian Joseph, J.
This is an appeal filed against the judgment and decree in
L.A.R. No. 424/1992 on the file of the Additional Sub Court,
North Paravur. Acquisition is for the purpose of Phenol Project at
Ambalamugal. Section 4(1) notification is dated 05.10.1988.
2. The grievance is only with regard to the valuation for the
structures. The claimants have a contention that going by the
reports of the Advocate Commissioner, which is marked as
Exhibits A2 and A2(a) in O.S. No. 1186/1990 on the file of the
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam, they are entitled to get a further
enhancement of Rs. 74,057/- and consequential benefits.
3. It is seen that the reference court rejected the reports of
the Advocate Commissioner on the ground that the suits were
withdrawn soon after the filing of the report of the Advocate
Commissioner without the defendants even getting an
opportunity to dispute the veracity of the reports. We find that
L.A.A. 1432/00 2
the court below is justified in taking such a stand, since
apparently the intention of the parties was only to secure the
report of the Advocate Commissioner, which was not accepted as
a piece of evidence in the said case for any purpose.
4. However, we find that the reference court has not
granted any further enhancement over the value fixed by the
Land Acquisition Officer. The value fixed by the Land Acquisition
Officer is only at PWD rates. It is brought to our notice that this
Court has consistently granted 20% enhancement over the value
fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer at PWD rates, since PWD
rates do not reflect the actual value of the materials and their
current market value.
5. Learned counsel for the additional second respondent
requisitioning authority submitted that the reference court ought
not have granted value of the structure as well as the land value.
But it has to be seen that it is not the capitalization method that
is followed. The acquired property is valued on the basis of
market value and in the process, as entitled under Section 23(1)
secondly, the value of the structure has been granted, which is
perfectly in order.
L.A.A. 1432/00 3
Accordingly, we partly allow the appeal holding that the
claimants shall be entitled to a further enhancement of 20% of
the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer towards value of
the building and the consequential statutory interest thereon.
KURIAN JOSEPH
JUDGE
HARUN-UL-RASHID
JUDGE
smp
L.A.A. 1432/00 4
KURIAN JOSEPH &
HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ.
L.A.A. NO. 1432 OF 2000
J U D G M E N T
29.10.2007