BHAVANI RAMALAKSHMY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal filed by the claimant, enhancement is claimed in land value and value of building. After elaborate arguments and perusal of papers, it was felt that the enhanced land value is reasonable and it requires no interference and if at all interference is required, it is only in the value of the building. Valuation of the building was on the basis of the schedule of rates of the Public Works Department in existence before 1-7-1980. For claiming enhanced land value, court fee was also not paid.

(2.) Under S.17 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, the valuation statement regarding buildings prepared by the Land Acquisition Officer will have to be approved by the District Collector, when the Collector making the award is not the District Collector, and by the Board of Revenue, when the Collector making the award is the District Collector. In this case, the award was not made by the District Collector and, therefore, the authority competent to approve the valuation statement was the District Collector. In that capacity, the appellant complained to the District Collector that the . valuation is not proper. The District Collector contacted the concerned Executive Engineer. By Ext.A2 letter dated 29-7-1981, the Executive Engineer informed the District Collector that the revised P.W.D. schedule of rates from 1-7-1980 was in force at the time when the valuation was made and, therefore, revised valuation is being undertaken for the building and a fresh certificate will be issued. The District Collector informed the appellant accordingly by Ext. A4 letter on 1-4-1982. Even before that date, the award was passed on 18-3-1981 and, therefore, no revision in the valuation was made. These facts were brought to the motive of the Trial Court by the appellant.

(3.) After possession was taken, the Government took steps to demolish the building. Appellant then filed O.S.No.449 of 1981 against the State for injunction. In that suit, a Commissioner was deputed to assess the value of the building and he submitted the original of Ext. A3 report. In Ext.A3, the building was valued at Rs.48,523/-. Appellant further wanted to call for a revised valuation statement. He cited the Commissioner as a witness and wanted to examine him. But, unfortunately, the Commissioner died. Therefore, he could not be examined. The injunction suit happened to be dismissed as infructuous. Under these circumstances, the Trial Court refused to act on Ext.A3 report. That is how the claim for enhancement in the value of the building was not considered.