Seethi vs State of Kerala and The Executive Engineer

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—The claimant is in appeal. His land with building in Cheranellur village was acquired for the purpose of widening of National Highway-17. The acquisition was pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 14/03/02. The Land Acquisition Officer included the property in category-1 and awarded value at the rate of Rs. 1,08,800/- per Are. Before the Reference Court, the evidence consisted of Exts.A1 to A9, R1 to R4 and oral evidence of AWs.1 to 5 and C1 and C1(a). The Reference Court on the basis of that evidence would re-fix market value of the land at Rs. 1,52,320/- per Are. For the buildings which existed on the property, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded value of Rs. 64,630/-. For building value, the appellant/claimant relied mostly on the report submitted by the Commissioner who was assisted by an Engineer for valuing the building. The Commissioner had recommended that the correct market value of the building after deducting depreciation for 15 years comes to Rs. 1,08,709/-. The court below did not place reliance on Commission Report saying the reason that the Commissioner''s source of information as to what was the cost of material and labour charges at the relevant time was not a dependable one. What the court below did was to enhance the building value by 30% and award a further amount of Rs. 19,389/-. Thus, the court below awarded 30% increase in building value.

Having gone through the impugned judgment, having re-appraised the evidence and having considered the submissions addressed before us by Sri. A.A. Abul Hassan, the learned Counsel for the appellant and by Smt. Latha T. Thankappan, the learned Senior Government Pleader, we are of the view that the learned Subordinate Judge could have awarded slightly higher value for the land and better compensation for the buildings. On an assessment based on re-appreciation of the evidence we re-fix the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs. 1,73,000/- per Are. The appellant will be entitled for enhanced land value on the basis of such re-fixation.

As for the building, we are of the view that the appellant should be awarded a further amount of Rs. 20,000/- over and above what was awarded by the Reference Court. We are of the view that some reliance would have been placed on the Commissioner''s Report since it is seen that the Commissioner has applied the correct depreciation constant and calculated depreciation for 15 years which is admittedly the age of the building. We award a further amount of Rs. 20,000/- more towards value of the building. The appeal will stand allowed. On the total enhanced compensation to which the appellant becomes eligible, he will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.