STATE OF KERALA AND THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.T.P. DIVISION Vs. M. ARULDAS S/O. MUTHU AND THE MANAGER, FEDERAL BANK LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE strenuous submissions of Smt. R. Bindu, the learned Government Pleader notwithstanding, we are not inclined to admit this appeal. The acquisition was of 0.40 Ares of land (which was completely built up) together with the building standing thereon. The purpose of the acquisition was for construction of Ponkunnam -Thodupuzha State Highway. The claimant/respondent claimed enhancement in value of the land as well as on the value of the building. For the building the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded an amount of Rs. 7,50,063/ - on the basis of Ext.R4 valuation report prepared by the Public Works Department. For substantiating the claim for enhanced building value, the appellant relied on Exts.A1(a), A1(b), A1(c) and A1(d) Commission Report. Exts.A1 to A1(d) were proved by examining AW2 Advocate Commissioner and AW3 Engineer who prepared the Valuation Report. As per the valuation report prepared by AW3 the correct value of the building is Rs. 16,17,978/ -. The court below found that the inspection by the Commissioner was with notice of the Government and that even as per Ext.R4 the building was constructed in 1999 i.e. some five years prior to Section 4(1) notification. Noticing that there was no counter evidence to the evidence adduced by AW2 and AW3, the learned Subordinate Judge accepted the valuation prepared by AW2 to be correct except to the extent it did not take into account the age of the building and the depreciation was not deducted in view of the age. What the learned Subordinate Judge did was to rely on the judgments of this Court in State of Kerala v. Kuruvila : 2005(3) KLT 580, Bhavani Ramalakshmi v. State of Kerala, 1990 (2) KLT 581 and Maitheen Kunju Abdul Rahman Kunju v. State of Kerala, 1954 KLT 798 and take the view that for 'B' class building, the depreciation to be deducted should be 5/6% from the first year onwards. Thus, after deducting the depreciation, the correct value of the building was determined at Rs. 15,50,562/ -. That amount was taken as the correct value of the building and additional compensation has been awarded on that basis. Having gone through the impugned judgment and having taken into account the circumstances that there was no serious challenge against the evidence adduced by AW2 and AW3 and that not even formal counter evidence was adduced by the Government against the evidence adduced on the side of the claimants, we are of the view that the impugned judgment cannot be faulted. The result is that we do not find any warrant for interference. The appeal will stand dismissed without any order as to costs.