N E THOMAS Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR KASARGOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimant is in appeal. 1.47 cents of land belonging to him together with a double storied building extending to 1356 sq. ft was acquired by the Government for the purposes of widening the Kasaragod-Kanhangad state highway. THE acquisition was pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 03/03/05. THE Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.24,442/- per cent. He also awarded a total amount of Rs.1,72,989/- towards value of the building. Before the Reference Court the evidence consisted of Exts.A1 to A6, X1 Commission Report and X2 eye sketch prepared by the Commissioner apart from the oral evidence of appellant as AW1. It was mostly on Ext.A3 document that the appellant relied on for the land value. Ext.A3 was a post notification document executed two years after the relevant date in favour of the LIC. Ext.A3 reflected a land value of Rs.4,16,000/- per cent. THE Advocate Commissioner had reported under Ext.X1 that Ext.A3 property and the property under acquisition are comparable. For enhancement in building value the appellant relied on the valuation report submitted by an Engineer but the same was not marked in evidence as the Engineer was never examined. Ext.A6 was not relied on by the court below as the author of Ext.A6 was not examined as a witness at all. THE court below did not rely on Ext.A3 despite the opinion of the commissioner that the properties are comparable. According to the court below Ext.A3 property and Ext.A6 property are not comparable.

(2.) IN this appeal various grounds are raised challenging the inadequacy of the compensation re-determined by the Reference Court. Sri.Jose J. Matheikel, the learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the court below erred in not relying on Ext.A3. He submitted that in another judgment in LAR No.8/07 passed by the very same Judge produced as Annexure-1 in the appeal, the learned Judge had relied on Ext.A3 and re-fixed the market value of the land at Rs.3,30,033/-. According to Sri.Matheikel what the learned Sub Judge did in the other case was to deduct 10% per year for the passage of time between the Section 4(1) notification and the date of Ext.A3. He requested that we also adopt the same course and re-fix the market value of land at the rates fixed under LAR.8/07. As regards the claim for building value, Sri.matheikel requested that though Engineer is not examined Ext.A6 be relied on and the building value be re-fixed on the basis of Ext.A6.

(3.) THE next question to be considered is whether the appellant is eligible for any enhancement in building value. As Ext.A6 has not been properly proved, the request for placing reliance on Ext.A6 cannot be accepted. THE learned Government Pleader is certainly correct in submitting that there is no evidence on the basis of which enhancement can be granted. But, we notice one aspect of the matter. Land Acquisition Authority valued the building adopting PWD schedule of rates. It is a matter of common knowledge that construction of building as per the schedule of rates published by the PWD is not pragmatic. Even the PWD is tendering out its civil works at 30 to 35% more than their published rates. Keeping that principle in mind, we award to the appellant a further amount of Rs.60,546/- which we round off to Rs.60,550/- towards building value. THE appeal is allowed to the above extent only. THE appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.