Allowed

Saradamma v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Mar 2011LA.App./206/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed part of a land acquisition appeal. While upholding the discarding of an unreliable valuation report due to lack of evidence, the Court awarded the appellant an additional Rs.40,000 as enhanced compensation for a building, noting PWD rates were non-pragmatic. The appeal was allowed with statutory benefits.

What did the court decide?

Award of Rs.40,000 towards building value over and above what was awarded by the Reference Court.

Saradamma Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2011 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1932

¶5

LA.App..No. 206 of 2011() ------------------------AR.33/2001 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM ....................

¶6

APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT

¶7

¶8

SARADAMMA, GOKULAM, NEERAVIL, THRIKKADAVOOR, KOLLAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.JOHN BRITTO

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT:

¶11

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM.-691501.

¶13

GOVT.PLEADER SMT.T.T.JOSEPHINA

¶14

THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.

¶16

L.A.A.No. 206 OF 2011

¶17

Dated this the 10^th day of March, 2011

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Pius C.Kuriakose, J.

¶20

The grounds in this appeal are confined to the appellant's claim for enhanced compensation for the building which existed on the property under acquisition. For the building, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,09272/-. Before the Reference Court, the appellant relied on Ext.A3 commission report. The engineer, who assisted the commissioner in preparing the valuation, was not even examined as witness. Even the commissioner was unable to say that the building, which he valued with the assistance of the engineer, was the building which stood on the property acquired. Under these circumstances, the commission report was discarded by the learned Subordinate Judge.

¶21

Even though Sri.C.A.Rajeev, learned counsel for the appellant, argued that the court below was not justified in discarding the commission report Ext.A3, we are not impressed

¶22

L.A.A..No.206/2011 2

¶23

by the above argument. We approve the action of the learned Subordinate Judge in having discarded Ext.A3. The learned Subordinate Judge did not award any enhanced compensation for the building obviously for the reason that there was no acceptable legal evidence on the basis of which such enhancement could have been granted. We notice another aspect of the matter. The building was awarded Rs.1,09272/on the basis of the valuation taken by the PWD. It is a matter of common knowledge that construction of buildings as per the PWD's schedule of rates is not a pragmatic proposition. Even the PWD is tendering out its civil works at rates higher than their published rates. Keeping that aspect in mind, we are inclined to award to the appellant a further compensation of Rs.40,000/- towards the building value. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed to the extent of awarding to the appellant Rs.40,000/- over and above what is awarded by the Reference Court towards the building value.

¶24

The appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits also. However, while interest under Section 28 is calculated, the Section will have due regard to the conditions imposed by us in

¶25

L.A.A..No.206/2011

¶26

¶27

our order in the petitions for condonation of representation delay (C.M.Appln.353/2011) and filing delay (C.M.Appln.424/2011). The Registry will issue decree copy to the appellant only after ensuring that the full court fee is paid and the conditions imposed by us in the delay petitions have been complied with.

¶28

The appeal is allowed, however, without any order as to

¶29

costs.

¶30

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE

¶31

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶32

dpk

Saradamma v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saradamma v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

John Vs Subhadra

Special Tahsildar Vs Rugmini Amma

Inland Waterways Authority of India Vs Thulasi and Another

The Sree Sankaracharya Uty of Sanskrit Vs State of Kerala

T.v.Mohanan Vs the Special Tahsildar

O.P.Alippu Vs the District Collector