MYTHEEN S/O KAREEM VALIYAPARAMBIL THATTUPARAMBU PUTHENPURAYIL MULAVOOR Vs. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimant/appellant whose land with a building extending to 47 Sq. M. in Mulavoor village of Muvattupuzha Thaluk was acquired for the purpose of widening of the M.C. Road complains that the Reference Court has not awarded him adequate compensation for the building which existed on his property. An expert Engineer in Ext.C1 report recommended for the award of a further sum of Rs. 1,23,908/- over the original compensation of Rs. 1,32,047/- which the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded in respect of the building. THE Engineer was examined as AW2. THE learned Subordinate Judge was not very much impressed by the evidence given by AW2 and Ext.C1 report. Ultimately the learned Subordinate Judge took the view that the valuation taken by the Land Acquisition Officer on the basis of Public Works Department's schedule of rates is not realistic and awarded 30% increase over the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Thus the appellant was awarded Rs. 39,614/- as additional compensation for the building.

(2.) IN this appeal, the main ground raised is that Ext.C1 should have been relied on. We have heard the submissions of Sri.Bindu Sasthamangalam, the learned counsel for the appellant and those of Sri.C.R.Syamkumar, the learned Senior Government Pleader.

(3.) HAVING given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions addressed at the Bar, and having made a quick re-appraisal of the evidence ourselves, we are of the view that the learned Subordinate Judge was justified in not placing reliance on Ext.C1. At the same time, we feel that the learned Subordinate Judge could have awarded some more compensation in respect of the building to the appellant. Based on the evidence available on record, we award to the appellant Rs. 25,000/- more towards value of the building than what is awarded by the Reference Court. The appeal is allowed to the above extent only. On the re-fixed compensation, the appellant will get all the statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act subject to the conditions imposed by this Court in its order in C.M.Application No.2120/10. The appeal is allowed. The appellant is also awarded proportionate costs.