The judgment emphasizes the importance of presenting sufficient evidence to support a claim for enhanced compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent/State.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the claimants is that the structure was acquired by Notification dtd. 18/7/1991 and the same was published in the Grama Chavadi on 9/6/1992 and award was passed in the year 1995. The Notification under Sec. 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act') was served on 28/12/1995. Reference application was filed by the claimants before the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 1/3/1996 and the same was received on 19/4/1997 by the Court.

3. The claimants being aggrieved by the award passed in LAQ/SR No./210/91-92 filed a reference application and the same is numbered as LAC No.129/1997. The trial Court after considering the reference application and taking note of the fact that admittedly the structure is acquired by the authorities comes to the conclusion that claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of 50% over and above the market value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer for the acquisition of the house property. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded an amount of Rs.4,63,065.00 and the same has been divided in respect of VP No.9a and 9b and awarded Rs.2,31,532.00.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would vehemently contend that the Reference Court has failed to take note of the document Ex.D.1 which is the house estimation report produced by the respondent and has failed to determine market value as per estimation report. He further submits that the appellants have examined P.W.3, Range Forest Officer who has categorically stated that the total wood used for the construction of the acquired house is 29.340 sq. mtr. Hence, the Reference Court should have considered the evidence of PW-3. Accordingly, he submits that the judgment and award of the trial Court calls for interference of this Court.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that while the document Ex.D.1 is marked and estimation was made but the same has been strike out and the author of the document Ex.D.1 with regard to the estimation is concerned has not been examined. P.W.3 who has been examined in respect of the claim of the appellants is only the Officer who was a successor but he has not identified the signature of the Forest Officer who estimated the cost and when such being the case, the Reference Court has rightly come to the conclusion that Ex.D.1 cannot be accepted and hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the claimants was not accepted. However, the trial Court has granted 50% compensation over and above the market value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and hence, the judgment and award of the trial Court does not call for any interference.

6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned High Court Government Pleader, the points that arise for consideration of this Court are:

(i) Whether the reference Court has committed an error in not awarding just and reasonable compensation ?

(ii) What order ?

7. Answer to Point No.1 : Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material the P.W.1 is examined before the reference Court and he claims in his evidence that, the house which was acquired was constructed by using teakwood and while assessing the value, it is considered as Jungle wood. He was also cross- examined before the trial Court. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that, in order to assess the valuation of the house, the Engineer had visited the house. He admits that, the house was constructed by his father and also house was constructed 15 years ago and also admits that the Engineer had mentioned that the house was constructed 22 years ago and he cannot tell how much amount was spent for the construction of the house and also he cannot estimate the cost of construction. He also admits that, in terms of Ex.P.3, the