JUDGMENT PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J. 1. This appeal preferred by the claimant pertains to the correct compensation payable for the building which existed on the appellant's land which was acquired for the construction of the Railway Over bridge at Chalakkudy. The acquisition was pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 08/02/01. For the building the Land Acquisition Officer awarded a total amount of Rs. 8,43,625/- out of which a sum of Rs. 49,000/- was deducted for the reason that certain valuable parts of the building were found missing. Thus the amount actually paid to the appellant was Rs. 7,94,540/-. Even though the appellant facilitated the filing of a report by the Advocate Commissioner who made valuation of the building with the assistance of an engineer, it so happened that the report of the Advocate Commissioner was not of much assistance to the appellant. Finding that the Commissioner's report is of not much assistance in the matter the learned Subordinate Judge would on a guess estimate award to the appellant 20% of the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer as enhanced compensation. 2. The argument of Sri.K.G. Balasubramanian, the learned counsel for the appellant before us was that the additional compensation awarded by the learned Subordinate Judge on a guess estimate is grossly inadequate. It is not a good guess that was done by the learned Subordinate Judge. Even on a good estimate there was justification for awarding 50% of the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition as enhanced compensation. 3. Per contra Sri. Shyson D. Manguzha, the learned Standing Counsel for the Requisitioning Authority submitted that even the additional compensation of 20% awarded by the learned Subordinate Judge is not justified. There was absolutely no evidence on the basis of which the compensation for the building could have been enhanced. It was the Public Works Department which valued the building adopting their published schedule of rates 4. Having considered the submissions addressed at the Bar, we are of the view that there is justification for enhancing the compensation to be awarded to the appellant for the building. Admittedly the Public Works Department valued the building by adopting their published schedule of rates. It is a matter of common knowledge that construction of buildings in accordance with the published schedule of rates is not a realistic proposition. Admittedly the Public Works Department valued the building by adopting their published schedule of rates. It is a matter of common knowledge that construction of buildings in accordance with the published schedule of rates is not a realistic proposition. Even the Public Works Department tenders out its civil work at 30 to 35% more than their published schedule of rates. Keeping that in mind, we are of the view that there is justification for awarding to the appellant a further amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- as additional compensation. Allowing this appeal, we award to the appellant Rs. 1,20,000/- more as additional compensation. The appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on the additional compensation awarded by us. Decree copy will be issued to the appellant only after ensuring that the appellant remits the full court fee payable on the appeal memorandum. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.