IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD OCTOBER 2009 / 1ST KARTHIKA 1931 LA.App..No.1908 of 2002 (B) & CROSS OBJECTION NO.117 OF 2004 ------------------------------------------- LAR.60/1997 of SUB COURT, SULTHAN BATHERY .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT --------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT -------------------------------- C.C.JAYARAM, BHANU VIHAR, PALLIKKUNNU, KANNUR ADV. SRI.PHILIP MATHEW SRI.G.G.MANOJ SRI.JAICE JACOB THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/10/2009, ALONG WITH CO NO.117 OF 2004, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ L. A. A. No.1908 of 2002 & Cross Objection No.117 of 2004 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The Government is in appeal and the claimant has preferred cross objections. The case pertains to acquisition of land planted with coffee and pepper mostly in the Wayanad district. Under the impugned judgment, the learned Subordinate Judge adopted a multiplier of 15 for determining value of the planted area by method of capitalisation of income. In the appeal preferred by the Government adoption of multiplier exceeding 8 is assailed on the authority of judgments of the Supreme Court. Another point which L. A. A. No.1908 of 2002 & Cross Objection No.117 of 2004 -2- is raised by the Government in this appeal is that the court below committed a mistake of assuming that the total value awarded to the claimant by capitalisation of income from the yielding coffee plants (for the area planted with coffee is only Rs.10,187.50/- while actually it is Rs.1,05,187/-). This has resulted in a consequential mistake while awarding compensation for yielding coffee plants. 2. In the memorandum of cross objections filed by the claimants, it is contended that the court below went wrong in not relying on Ext.A3 and that the market value of the land which was valued by adopting the land value method should have been fixed at Rs.400/- per cent and not at Rs.250/- per cent L. A. A. No.1908 of 2002 & Cross Objection No.117 of 2004 -3- as is done under the impugned judgment. Then it is further urged in the memorandum of cross objections that Ext.A5 should have been relied on and the price of coffee should have been taken as at least Rs.60/- per kilogram. 3. We have heard the submissions of Senior Government Pleader Sri.Basant Balaji and those of Sri.Philip Mathew. Referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court, Sri.Basant argued that adoption of a multiplier exceeding 10 will offend binding decisions of the Supreme Court. He pointed out that the mistake committed by the court while determining the value of the area planted with coffee is the mistake of the awarding officer himself. Relying on the judgment of L. A. A. No.1908 of 2002 & Cross Objection No.117 of 2004 -4- the Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Paily Mani (1994(2) KLT 444), Sri.Philip Mathew will justify the action of the learned Subordinate Judge in adopting multiplier of 15. He referred to Ext.A3 and submitted that there was no reason as to why land value of Rs.400 per cent reflected in Ext.A3 should not be granted. He also argued that Ext.A5 should have been relied on and that price of coffee should have been taken as Rs.60/- per kilogram. 4. Having anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar, we are of the view that the court below was in error in adopting a multiplier of 15. Even though, the Supreme Court has held that the multiplier cannot exceed 10, we feel that L. A. A. No.1908 of 2002 & Cross Objection No.117 of 2004 -5- in this case, as the property under acquisition was substantially a coffee plantation in Wayanad, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in L.A.A.247/2000 can be followed and the proper multiplier to be adopted for coffee and pepper can be fixed at 12. Accordingly, in modification of the judgment and decree under appeal, we fix the multiplier to be adopted both for coffee and pepper as 12. The submission of the learned Government Pleader that the court below went wrong in mentioning the total compensation awarded to the claimant for coffee plantation is correct. A careful perusal of the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer will show that the total compensation which was awarded to the L. A. A. No.1908 of 2002 & Cross Objection No.117 of 2004 -6- claimant towards value of the coffee plantation is much more. 5. We find some genuineness in the grievance voiced by the claimant regarding the market value of the land. We feel that Ext.A3 should not have been completely eschewed from consideration. Placing reliance on Ext.A3, we re-fix the market value of the land at Rs.350/- per cent. We feel that opportunity should be given to the claimant for proving the price of coffee at the relevant time. Under the above circumstances, the appeal and the Cross Objections are disposed of issuing the following directions:- 1) The judgment and decree under appeal are set aside. Market value of the land under acquisition is L. A. A. No.1908 of 2002 & Cross Objection No.117 of 2004 -7- fixed at Rs.350/- per cent. It is held that the proper multiplier to be adopted for determining the value of coffee plantation and the area cultivated with pepper is 12. The court below is directed to deduct the amount actually paid to the cross objector towards value of the coffee plantation by the Land Acquisition Officer for determining the enhanced compensation receivable by him. The court below will afford opportunity to the cross objector for proving as to what was the correct price of coffee at the relevant time and will re-fix the compensation payable for the coffee plantations on the basis of the evidence adduced by the claimant regarding the price of the pepper. The L.A.R is remanded to the Reference Court L. A. A. No.1908 of 2002 & Cross Objection No.117 of 2004 -8- in the light of the findings entered herein above and for complying with the directions given above. Parties are directed to suffer their costs. Since the Cross objector is to be faulted for not producing cogent evidence before the court below, we are not inclined to order refund of the court fee already remitted on the memorandum of cross objections. Parties will appear before the Reference Court on 16/11/09. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K. SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE kns/-