IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2009 / 26TH SRAVANA 1931 LA.App..No. 22 of 2002(A) ----------------------------------- LAR.63/1996 of SUB COURT, SULTHAN BATHERY .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- MOORKALAYIL BABY, S/O.VARKEY, KARIYAMBADY, PURAKKADI. BY ADVS. MR.PHILIP MATHEW MR.G.G.MANOJ RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WYANAD. 2. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LAND ACQUISITION), K.R.P./BSIP, KALPETTA. R1 & R2 BY MR.RAJAN JOSEPH, ADDL.A.G. FOR R R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.P.N.SUMANGALA THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= L.A.A. No. 22 of 2002 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 17th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J. Even though several grounds have been raised, Sri.Philip Mathew, learned counsel for the appellant relying on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in L.A.A.No.247 of 2002 argued that the court below went wrong in adopting multiplier of 10. According to him, the proper multiplier to be adopted for determining the value of the property under acquisition is 12. 2. Smt.P.N.Sumangala, learned Government Pleader resisted the above submission. According to her, though this Court has taken such a view in a case, the said view runs contrary to the view of the Supreme Court. 3. We have considered the rival contentions. We are of the view that there is justification, in the facts and circumstances of this case, in awarding some more compensation for the lands under acquisition. A Bench of this Court has held that the correct multiplier to be adopted in a given case will depend on the nature of the land, nature of the plants, etc. We find that the L.A.A.No 22/02 2 property was in Waynad District, which is known for one of the coffee plantation in the whole of Asia. There is justification for adopting a higher multiplier i.e., multiplier between 11 and 12. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled to further amount of Rs.15,000/- over and above the amounts awarded by the reference court. We award Rs.15,000/- over and above the award of the reference court. The appeal stands allowed, but in the circumstances no order as to costs. It is needless to mention that the appellant will be entitled to all statutory benefits on the additional amount to which he becomes eligible on account of our re-fixation under this judgment. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. mn. L.A.A.No 22/02 3 PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- L.A.A. No. 22 of 2002 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- JUDGMENT 17th day of August, 2009