IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2009 / 22ND ASWINA 1931 LA.App..No. 1681 of 2002(A) -------------------------------- LAR.5/1998 of SUB COURT, SULTHAN BATHERY .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ----------------------------- SAIDALAVI.K., S/O. HASSAN, PARIYARAM, MUTTIL, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP MATHEW SRI.G.G.MANOJ RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD, KALPETTA. 2. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION, K.R.P.S. BSIP, KALPETTA. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT.LATHA T. THANKAPPAN THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/10/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.1681 of 2002 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J It appears to us that there is some genuineness in the grievance voiced by the appellant whose coffee plantations in Wayanad district is acquired for the purpose of Karapuzha Irrigation Project. The property under acquisition was valued by adopting the method of capitalisation of income. It is multiplier of 8 which was adopted by the Reference Court. This court in a case pertaining to acquisition of land in Wayanad, has already vide judgment in L.A.A.247/2000 held that adoption of a multiplier of 12 will be justified in Wayanad district which is known for some of the best coffee plantations in Asia and where the land is very fertile. We feel that there is justification in this case L. A. A. No.1681 of 2002 -2- for adopting a multiplier higher than eight notwithstanding the judgments of the Supreme Court which are to the effect that the proper multiplier to be adopted is eight. On re-calculating the total compensation that way, the appellant will be entitled for a further compensation of Rs.10,000/- over and above what is awarded to him under the impugned award. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and award the appellant a further amount of Rs.10,000/-. The above amount will carry all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(2), 23(1A) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K. SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE kns/-