Pius C. Kuriakose, J.

1. The claimant is in appeal. His land and building were acquired for the purposes of the International Airport at Nedumbassery. This appeal is confined to claim for enhanced value for the building which existed on the acquired property. The Land Acquisition Authority would award a total amount of Rs. 1,89,100/- obviously on the basis of valuation prepared by the Public Works Department. Before the Reference Court, the claimant relied on reports submitted by an Advocate Commissioner on the basis of an inspection conducted with the assistance of a qualified Engineer. The commissioner reported that the age of the front two rooms of the buildings was only five years as against the age of 15 years fixed by the Land Acquisition Authority. Similarly as regards the remaining portion of the building also the Commissioner reported that the age was only 10 years as against the age of 15 years fixed by Land Acquisition Authority. The court below was not very much impressed by the Commission Report. The court below would only apply the rule of thumb and enhance the compensation for the building by 30% and re-fix value of the building at Rs. 2,45,830/-.

2. Sri. George Abraham, the learned Counsel for the Appellant would place strong reliance on the judgment of this Court in LAA. 534/08 and submit that in that case this Court has accepted the same report filed by the same Commissioner who was assisted by the same Engineer. The learned Counsel requested that the Commission Report be relied on and the enhanced claim in this appeal (Rs. 1 lakh) be allowed in full.

3. On behalf of the Standing Counsel for the Requisitioning Authority, Smt. Amminikutty, the learned counsel would oppose all the submissions of Mr. George Abraham. According to her, the Commission Report is not at all dependable and she pointed out that unlike other cases in the present case the Engineer who prepared the valuation report was not even examined.

4. We have considered the submissions. It is not clear from the Commission Report as to what was the total area of that portion of the building which was constructed within a period of five years. At the same time, we feel that the entire building was aged only ten years. Keeping that in mind and also keeping in mind the principle that construction of buildings in accordance with PWDs published schedule of rates is not a pragmatic idea, we feel that the enhancement granted by the court below is not adequate. Taking into account all relevant inputs in the matter, we award to the Appellant a further amount of Rs.30,000/- over and above what is awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer as further compensation for the building.

5. The appeal is allowed to the above extent only, however without any order as to costs. The Appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits also. However, while provision is made in the decree for interest under Section 28, the Section will have due regard to the conditions imposed by us by this Court in the order in C. M. Application No. 869/09.