NALINI,W/O.PADMAJAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimant in L.A.R.No.112 of 2003 before the Subordinate Judge, Thodupuzha is the appellant herein. As per a notification dated 18.2.2000 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, certain properties belonging to the appellant with a building thereon were acquired by the State. Dissatisfied with the land value and compensation for the building fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the appellant sought reference and L.A.R.No.112/2003 came to be referred to the Subordinate Judge, Thodupuzha. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the compensation for the building and structures as Rs.1,51,207/-. The Sub Court rejected the claim for enhancement of the compensation for the building on the ground that the appellant has not adduced any acceptable evidence in support of her claim for enhancement of compensation. In this appeal, the appellant is aggrieved by that part of the judgment of the Sub Court, whereby the Sub Court refused to grant enhancement of compensation for the building and other structures acquired from the appellant.

(2.) ACCORDING to the appellant, the appellant had adduced convincing evidence regarding the valuation of the building in the form of a valuation made by AW2, who is a qualified Engineer undertaking building contract works and supervision of construction of buildings. He had valued the building at Rs.3,30,000/-. According to the counsel for the appellant, there was no reason for the Sub Court to reject the evidence adduced by a qualified Engineer regarding the valuation of the building.

(3.) WE have considered the rival contentions in detail. We are also of the opinion that in the absence of any evidence regarding the credentials of AW2 as an expert valuer, his evidence cannot be relied on for the purpose of valuation of the building. He did not produce any documents proving that he was an approved valuer. In fact, he did not even produce any documents to prove that he is an Engineer at all. All what he has done is to state in the box that he is a qualified Engineer and is undertaking construction of buildings and supervision of construction of buildings. He did not even state his qualifications in his deposition. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the finding of the Sub Court that the evidence of AW2 cannot be relied upon for the purpose of valuation of the building.