Judgment:
C.K. Abdul Rehim, J.
1. LAA. 1577/08 is filed by the claimant challenging award of the Reference Court in LAR. 97/95, seeking enhancement of the compensation, whereas LAA. 223/09 is filed by the State against the very same award contending that the amount awarded by the Reference Court is excessive. The acquisition pertains to 3 cents of property along with a commercial building, which is a hotel with lodging house, and two small residential buildings. The property is situated in Kumbla town in Kasaragod district. The acquisition was for widening of National Highway, by virtue of notification under Section 4(1) published on 13/02/90. The dispute in both these appeals mainly pertains to the valuation of the building re-fixed by the Reference Court.
2. Mr. T. Sethumadhavan, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants, raised arguments mainly contending that the Reference Court went highly erred in not accepting Ext.X1 Commission Report in which valuation was done with assistance of an expert. It is contended that the Reference Court had deducted 15% on a total basis from the valuation reported in Ext.X1 and thereafter deducted 13% towards depreciation. According to learned Counsel the deduction made at two spells is highly improper and irregular.
3. Heard Smt. Latha T. Thankappan, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the appellant in LAA. 223/09 and the respondent in the other appeal.
4. On a perusal of the impugned award of the Reference Court, we noticed that the learned Subordinate Judge has discarded Ext.B1 valuation made by the Superintending Engineer which is based on the PWD schedule of rates. Exts.A1 to A10 documents were considered, which shows valuation regarding other buildings situated in the locality. Ext.A6 pertains to a building namely 'Samskarika Nilayam' and it showed cost of construction at the rate of Rs. 2,406.57/- per Sq. M. Ext.A8 revealed cost of construction with respect to a Nursery School building at the rate of Rs. 1,898.69/- per Sq. M. Learned Counsel for the petitioner points out that as per Ext.A10 resolution adopted by the Municipality, it is revealed that the cost of construction incurred for the 'Municipal Bus Stand Building' was above Rs. 3,000/- per Sq. M. But we notice that all the above said constructions are made during the period between 1989 - 1992. But admittedly the acquired building was constructed in the year 1977, more than 10 years before the said constructions.
5. In Ext.X1 report the cost of construction estimated is at the rate of Rs. 3,355.41/- per Sq. M. Therefore we are of the opinion that the finding of the Reference Court that the valuation entered in Ext.X1 is on the higher side is quite reasonable. Being a construction made in the year 1977 the rate quoted in Ext.X1 when compared with the rates revealed from Exts.A6, A8 and A10 is definitely on the higher side. Hence, we find no justification to interfere with the reduction of 15% made by the Reference Court, out of the estimated value in Ext.X1 Commission Report. Further, it is revealed that even though Ext.X1 was prepared with the assistance of an expert, no depreciation was noted on the basis of the age of the buildings. Since the building is constructed during 1977 depreciation on the basis of age ought to have been reduced from the valuation. Considering the above aspect, we find no error or infirmity in the findings of the Reference Court that 13% of the estimated value need be deducted as depreciation. Hence, we are of the opinion that re-fixation made by the Reference Court based on Ext.X1 report, after making 15% reduction and 13% depreciation is quite reasonable and justified.
6. However, we notice that the same rate of depreciation is estimated for the compound wall, open well, electrification etc. It need re- consideration and the valuation with respect to improvements like the compound wall, well, electrification etc. need be re-fixed. On an overall estimation and applying the rule of thumb, we are of the opinion that an additional amount of Rs. 50,000/- can be awarded in this Court in order to meet the ends of justice.
7. In view of the above findings we dismiss LAA. 223/09. LAA. 1577/08 is allowed in part enhancing the total compensation by a further sum of Rs. 50,000/-, which amount will carry all statutory benefits allowable under law.
8. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs in both the appeals.