IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2011 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1933 LA.App..No. 1474 of 2007(C) -------------------------------- LAR.84/1991 of SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANT: ----------------------------- VATTOLIL AYYAPPAN NAIR,S/O.VASUDEVA KURUP,AGED 62,KATHIKAPURAM P.O,ALAKODE AMSOM, ARANGAM DESOM,TALIPARAMBA TALUK,KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------- THE SUB COLLECTOR & LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,THALASSERY,KANNUR DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.T.JOSEPHINA SMT.AMBIKA DEVI, SC, KWA THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N. K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.1474 of 2007 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The claimant is in appeal. His properties in Alakode village were acquired at the behest of the Kerala Water Authority. The acquisition was pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 14/11/1989. The properties were garden lands which is part of a rubber plantation. Altogether there were 139 rubber trees, out of which there were 126 yielding rubber trees and 13 non-yielding rubber trees. Yielding rubber trees were valued by adopting the method of capitalisation of income and non-yielding rubber trees were valued by awarding timber value. In total a sum of ` 86,734/- was awarded for the yielding trees and for the non-yielding trees a sum of ` 501/- was awarded. Before the Reference L. A. A. No.1474 of 2007 -2- Court the appellant adduced evidence. The appellant's endeavour was to show that the income from the rubber trees was much more. The appellant also produced Ext.A1 document reflecting a land value of ` 2,018/- per cent. The court below did not rely on any of the items of evidence adduced by the appellant. Instead, what the court below did was to apply the rule of thumb and grant 50% increase over what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. 2. In this appeal various grounds are raised and Sri.V.T.Madhavanunni, the learned counsel for the appellant addressed arguments based on all those grounds. According to Sri.Madhavanunni what is presently awarded is very low. He draws our attention to Annexure-A1 judgment in LAR.212/01 of the same Sub Court. According to him, Ext.A1 pertains to acquisition of neighbouring property and under Ext.A1 the court below granted 75% increase. Learned counsel requested that at least 75% increase over what has L. A. A. No.1474 of 2007 -3- been awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer should be granted to the appellant also. During the course of his submissions, the learned counsel submitted that though in the award the extent of the property is shown as more than 59 cents, going by the actuals, it can be seen that the extent of property is only 50 cents and it would be suffice to say that the extent of property will have to be taken as 50 cents only. 3. The submissions of Sri.Madhavanunni were opposed by Smt.Ambika Devi, the learned Standing Counsel for the Water Authority. Smt.T.T.Josephina, the learned Government Pleader would support the Standing Counsel for the Water Authority in all her submissions. According to the learned Standing Counsel and the Government Pleader what is awarded by the court below is reasonable and there is no justification for further enhancement. 4. We have very anxiously considered the rival L. A. A. No.1474 of 2007 -4- submissions addressed at the Bar. We have made a quick survey of the evidence on record. As already indicated, the learned Subordinate Judge did not place reliance on any of the items of evidence which was available before that court. Instead it was the rule of thumb that was adopted. The submission of Sri.Madhavanunni that applying rule of thumb itself, the appellant can be granted a further enhancement of 25%, does not appeal to us. Though the above submission is founded on Annexure-A1, we feel that instead of the present method of valuation adopted, if the method of land value plus awarding timber value for the trees is adopted, the appellant will stand to gain. Ext.A1 document executed about two to five years prior to the date of Section 4(1) notification is the basis document relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer which reflected a land value of ` 2,018/-. If due additions are given for passage of time, the market value of the land under acquisition at the relevant time can L. A. A. No.1474 of 2007 -5- be taken as ` 2,300/- per cent. Calculating market value of the land in that way the total land value to which the appellant becomes eligible will come to ` 1,15,000/-. It is seen from the evidence that the appellant claimed a timber value for all the rubber trees only at the rate of ` 300/- per tree We are not inclined to grant more than that rate as timber value for the trees. Total number of rubber trees (both yielding and non-yielding) included is 139. According to the award it is 139, but Sri.Madhavanunni fairly conceded on the basis of the evidence adduced by his party before the court below that the total number of trees is only 132. We award to the appellant as timber value a total amount of ` 39,600/-. Thus, we re-fix the total compensation receivable by the appellant at ` 1,54,600/-. The compensation amount received by the appellant from the Acquisition Officer will be deducted. For the market value re-fixed by us, the appellant is eligible for all statutory benefits admissible under Sections L. A. A. No.1474 of 2007 -6- 23(2), 23(1A) and under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. 5. The appeal is allowed to the above extent, however, without any order as to costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE N. K. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE kns/-