IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2009 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 LA.App..No. 559 of 2007(D) -------------------------- LAR.6/1999 of SUB COURT, NEDUMANGAD .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND FOR KSEB, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA T.THANKAPPAN RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS ------------------------ 1. P.SARADA AMMA, CHANDRIKA VILASATH VEEDU, MEENMUTHI, PALODE VILLAGE. 2. CHANDRIKA KUMARI, KATTUKULATHIL, KACHANI, KARAKULAM VILLAGE. 3. G.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, CHAITHRAM, PLAVARA, PALODE VILLAGE. 4. S.VIJAYAKUMARI, DIVYA, TC 29/269, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. S.RAJESWARI, SOORYAKANTHY, PIRAPPANCODE, MANICKAL VILLAGE. 6. G.S.SUDHAKUMARI, KEERTHI, KALLIPPARA, PALODE VILLAGE. 7. G.S.VALSALAKUMARI, GAYATHRI, PLAVARA, PALODE. 8. SREEKANTAN NAIR, SREESYLAM, PULIPPARA, KARIPOORU VILLAGE. LAA.559/07 9. S.GIRIJA KUMARI, CHANDRIKAVILASATHU VEEDU, MEENMUTTY, PALODE VILLAGE. 10. SECRETARY, PALODE CO-OPERATIVE- AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK. ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.SREEDHARAN NAIR FOR R.1TO9 SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR FOR R.1TO9 THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` L.A.A. No. 559 of 2007 D ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 1st day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J. This appeal by the government pertains to acquisition of land in Palode village of Thiruvananthapuram district for the purpose of the Lower Meenutti Hydro Electric Project, pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 16-12-1995. The properties were included in Category B and Category D by the Land Acquisition Officer. For the properties included in Category B, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.8,608/- per Are and for the properties included in Category D, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.5,853/- per Are. The reference court, under the impugned judgment, calculated the compensation by adopting the method of capitalisation of income from the yielding trees. The court also re- fixed the land value. While re-fixing the land value, the court found that the entire property extending to 168.12 Ares was eligible to be included in Category B. The value of property included in LAA.559/07 : 2 : Category B was re-fixed at Rs.10,760/- per Are. It is trite that when lands with fruit bearing trees are acquired, compensation is to be determined on the basis of capitalisation of income from the fruit bearing trees or on the basis of land value in which case the claimant is to be awarded value of timber also. Under the impugned judgment, we notice that ultimately in paragraph 21, the court below has awarded only land value to the claimants, which indicates that the court below opted for the land value methods, since the court thought that method was more advantageous to the claimants. Decree also is prepared on the basis of paragraph 21 of the judgment. But, as rightly submitted by the learned senior Government Pleader Smt.Latha T. Thankappan, it would appear on a reading paragraph 21 that some mistake has been committed by the court, while fortifying the enhancement value. Having considered the submissions before us, we are of the view that the fixation of a uniform rate for the acquired land included under Category B at Rs.10,760/- per Are is justified on the evidence. Since land value method is more advantageous to the claimant, compensation is to be determined on the basis of LAA.559/07 : 3 : that method. However, in view of the mistake noticed in paragraph 21 of the judgment and decree, we permit the government to move the reference court for correction of the mistake by filing appropriate application under Section 152 of the CPC. Subject to the above direction, the L.A.A. is disposed of, without interfering with the fixation of land value by the learned Sub Judge. (PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) aks