PRABHAKARAN PLAVILA VEEDU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimant is the appellant. His land situated in Edamulackal village near to Ayoor junction on the main central road together with the building situated thereon was acquired for the development of the M.C. Road under the KSTP. The acquisition was pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 24/10/02. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 88,235/ - per Are. For the building the Land Acquisition Officer awarded value at Rs. 4,24,029/ -. In support of the claim for enhanced land value, the appellant produced Ext.A1 which was a post notification document. Ext.A1 was discarded by the learned Subordinate Judge for the reason that neither the vendor nor the vendee of Ext.A1 was examined. Court ultimately L. A. A. No. 39 of 2012 -2 -noticed the importance of the locality and doing guess work fixed the land value at Rs. 1,76,470/ - thereby giving cent percent increase on the land value. Exts.A2 and A3 were the documents produced by the appellant to prove his claim for enhanced value for the building. Noticing that better evidence in the form of a Commission Report with the assistance of Engineer was not brought on record the court below discarded Exts.A2 and A3 and confirmed the building value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer.

(2.) HAVING considered the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal and the submissions of Sri.T.Naveen, the learned counsel for the appellant and also those of Sri.Aloysious Thomas, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the Government and having carefully gone through the award we feel that even in the absence of any evidence from the part of the appellant there is justification for awarding enhancement to the appellant towards the building value. The building was got valued by the Land Acquisition Officer through the Engineers of the L. A. A. No. 39 of 2012 -3 -Public Works Department. The PWD valued the building for the purposes of the original award applying the schedule of rates published by the PWD. It is a matter of common knowledge that construction of buildings in accordance with PWD's published schedule of rates is not a pragmatic proposition. Even the PWD is tendering out its civil works at 30 -32% rates higher than their own published schedule of rates. Keeping that principle in mind, we are inclined to award to the appellant a sum of Rs. 1,27,500/ - as additional value for the building.

(3.) SRI .Naveen submitted that the appellant did not get sufficient opportunity for producing all relevant documents. He fervently requested that an opportunity be given so that the appellant can produce pre -notification documents in the area reflecting higher value than Rs. 1,76,470/ - per Are presently fixed.