STATE OF KERALA Vs. SUSHAMA KUAMRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the Government against the award of enhanced compensation towards value of land and also towards value of the building which existed on the land under acquisition. The property was in Thycaud Village of Thiruvananthapuram District. The acquisition was for the purpose of construction of Jagathy Bridge pursuant to Section 4(1) notification dated 6.11.2000. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed land value at Rs. 2,96,400/- per Are and awarded structure value at Rs. 4,28,387/-. The reference court re-fixed the land value at Rs. 6 lakhs per Are on the basis of the evidence which came on record. The structure value was enhanced (sic) to Rs. 3,98,365/-. Before the reference court the claimant relied main (sic) Ext. A5 commission report and Ext. A5(a) valuation prepared by an expert who assisted the commissioner in the matter of Ext.A5 commission report. The claim towards compensation for the building was Rs. 40 lakhs. Under Exts.A5 and A5(a) the value of the building was assessed at Rs. 9,56,250/-. The court below did not rely on Ext.A5 or A5(a) for the reason that the author of Ext. A5(a) was not examined and that going by Ext. A5 (a) the age of the building was only 9 years, while even on the admissions of the claimant the building was 20 years old. Ultimately the court below relied on the valuation prepared by the PWD on the basis of which the awarding officer fixed value for the building. What the court below did was to rely on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Savjiram and Anr., 2004 9 SCC 312 and award enhanced value of Rs. 3,98,365/- for the building. That amount was the amount which had been deducted under the PWD valuation towards depreciation for the oldage of the building. In other words, the learned Sub Judge relying on Savjiram's case (supra) took the view that in land acquisition cases when old buildings are acquired, depreciation for the age of the building is not liable to be deducted from the value of the building determined as per the current rates for construction.

(2.) Smt. R. Bindu, learned Counsel for the appellant would assail the impugned judgment on the various grounds raised in the appeal memorandum. She submitted that the land value determined is exorbitant. She also submitted that the enhancement granted towards compensation for the building cannot be approved.

(3.) Having gone through the impugned judgment we find that the evaluation of the evidence to the extent it pertains to land value was proper. But we notice that the rate presently awarded is even more than what was claimed by the party. The claim by the respondent was only Rs. 2.25 lakhs per cent. According to us, the land value cannot be fixed at a rate more than what was claimed by the respondent before the court. In that view of the matter we re-fix the value of land under acquisition at Rs. 5,55,976/- per Are (the amount claimed by the respondent), in modification of the land value fixed by the court below.