IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI SATURDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2009 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1931 LA.App..No. 513 of 2009() ------------------------- LAR.52/2003 of SUB COURT, SULTHAN BATHERY .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT(S): -------------- STATE OF KERALA (ADDL. TAHSILDAR SULTHAN BATHERY AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KARAPPUZHA IRRIGATION PROJECT) REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.BABU RESPONDENT/CLAIMANTS(S): --------------- MATHEW, S/O. KURIAN, THERUVUMYALIL P.O. KALATHUVAYAL. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No. 513/2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Even though Sri.P.K.Babu, learned Government Pleader would forcefully argue that the adoption of a multiplier of 12 in stead of 8 in this case is contrary to law as settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Airports Authority of India v. Satyagopal Roy and Others ( AIR 2002 Supreme Court 1423), and the judgment of this court in State of Kerala v. Yesodharan (2005 (3) KLT 408). But, we notice that a Division Bench of this court in L.A.A. No.247/2000 has held that while a coffee estate is valued adopting the method of capitalisation of the income, the age of the coffee plants and longevity of the life of such plants can be taken into account and a multiplier of 12 can be reasonably fixed. 2. Having gone through the judgment of the Supreme Court and the judgment of the Division Bench of this court, we are of the view that unlike the judgment of the Supreme Court, the Division Bench judgment decides a specific case of valuation L.A.A..No.513/2009 2 of coffee plantation. We are in agreement with the view expressed by the Division Bench and do not find any reason for interfering with the multiplier of 12 adopted under the impugned judgment. We also notice that the properties are situated in Wayanad District and that the claimant respondent was an agriculturist who deserves some indulgence in view of the drought and other conditions which are peculiar to the Wayanad District. Enhancement granted by the Reference court on the structural value and towards shifting charges, in our opinion, is reasonable. We notice that no enhancement whatsoever was granted by the reference court on the land value. 3. The above discussion will lead to the conclusion that there is no warrant for interfering with the impugned judgment. The appeal will stand dismissed in limine. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE dpk