Kerala High Court
AS/49/1954 of VAREED Vs CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF TRAVANCORE COCHIN on 8 December 1955
COURT . OF THE STATE OF . 'J'RAVANCORE-COCHIN AT ERNAKTJLAM. P.resent:- The Hon'Ble Shri K.T. Koshi, Chief' Justice and The Hon•ble Sh.ri N.Va.radaraja Iyengar, Judge. A.S. No. 49 of 1954. In the Court of the District Judge, Trichur, L.A.Case 30/1124. Appellant:- Petitioner in the court
IN THE HIGH COURT .OF THE STATEOF. 'J'RAVANCORE-COCHIN AT ERNAKTJLAM.
-P.resent:
The Hon'Ble Shri K.T. Koshi,Chief' Justice
and
The Hon•ble Sh.ri N.Va.radaraja Iyengar, Judge.
In the Court of the District Judge, Trichur, L.A.Case 30/1124.
Appellant:- Petitioner in thecourt below••
varied,_son of Kaliankara varied,Chiyyaram Village, Chiyyaram tPe DeSom, Trichur Taluk.
By Advocates Shri T.S. Venkiteswara Iyer andShri c.s . Ananthakri shna Iyer ..
-Respondent:
-The Chief Secretary to the Government of TravancoreCochin, Trivandrum.
By 'Government Pleader Shri C.M. Kuruvila.
-This Appeal Suit having been finally heard on 8-121955, this court on the same day delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT.
Of the three heads under which enhancement is claimed we areinclined· to think that the value awarded for the bigge.r building isnot adequate.It was a new construction and according to the appel--lant it was fetching a rent of Rs. 10/ per month.Evidence let in bythe state shows that the value w~s fixed by estimating the cost ofbuilding mate.rials at 150% above the schedule rates.It ·is commonknowledge that in 1123 the usual rate was 200 to 300 above the schedulrates.We accordingly hold that the value of that·u:bli building·should be fixed on the basis that on the date of the relevent notifi-cation the value of building materials was at least 200% above thescheduled rates.On that footing the appellant is entitled to get--Rs. 130108 more for the bigger building and we award that amount~.-also to him together with the usual solatium of 15% thereon and interest on the aggregate of the two at 6% per annum f.rom the date of dispossession.
Page 1 of 2
The claim for enhancement in .respect of other items, namely, the;smaller building, the wells and trees is unsustainable.
'The appellant will pay the state one-half of their costs BB intl;l1s_ coutt and bea.r his _Qwn., ....\·.,· The State hasi p.refe.r.red a memo of. objec---•••_,?.·_ -I:tions· regarding the disallowed portion of their costs.We see no·reas·on to interfere .in tbat~-i-espeet and dismiss the memo, but without costs.
. Order. acco.rdingly.-"'Sa/ K.. Koshi, C.J.,#Sd/-- N. vara.daraja Iyengar, J.
8-12-1955.
(~rue Copy) •
,,-.Dy. Registrar,··· fo.r Registrar.
AR/'7=2-56.
A.S. NO• 49 or 1954.Copy of Judgroont.
(
·)
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…