IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2009 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1931 LA.App..No. 542 of 2009() ------------------------- LAR.56/2003 of SUB COURT, KALPETTA .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD (ADDL. TAHSILDAR, SULTHAN BATHERY AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KARAPPUZHA IRRIGATION PROJECT.) BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.BABU RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS ------------------------ 1. JANKI CHETTICHIYAR, W/O. LATE NARAYANAN CHETTI, POOLAPPURA HOUSE, VENGERI, P.O.KALATHUVAYAL. 2. KUTTIKRISHNAN, S/O. LATE NARAYANAN CHETTI, POOLAPPURA HOUSE, VENGERI, P.O.KALATHUVAYAL. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.A.A.No.542 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. The ground which is prominently raised by the government in this appeal is that the reference court went wrong in applying a multiplier of 12 for determining the value of the coffee plantation acquired in this case on the strength of the judgment of a Single Judge of this court in State of Kerala v. Yasodharan ( 2005(3) KLT 408) and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Airports Authority of India v. Satyagopal Roy and others (AIR 2002(SC) 423). But we notice that the learned Subordinate Judge has relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of this court L.A.A.No.247/2000. In fact the judgment of the Division Bench relied on by the learned Subordinate Judge was in respect of a coffee plantation unlike the two cases relied on by the government in the memorandum of appeal. More over, we find that the property was in Wayanad district and regard should be given to the peculiar circumstances prevailing in that district. At any rate we find no reason for interfering with the impugned judgment. The appeal will stand dismissed. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE sv.