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 8TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 17TH BHADRA 1931 LA.App..No. 745 of 2009() ------------------------- LAR.32/2004 of SUB COURT, SULTHAN BATHERY .................... APPELLANT(S/RESPONDENT -------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA T.THANKAPPAN RESPONDENT(S)/CLAIMANT: --------------- P.V.JOSEPH,S/O.VARKEY, KAITHAMATTOM,NELLARCHAL POST. THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.745 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 8thday of September, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. We are not inclined to admit this appeal, which pertains to acquisition of land for the purpose of Karapuzha Irrigation Project. The lands were in Wayanad District. Relevant Section 4 (1) notification was published on 2/7/1998. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed land value at the rate of Rs.599.94/- per cent. The court below on the basis of the evidence, which came on record, refixed the land value at Rs.899.94/- per cent. 2. Having gone through the impugned judgment, we are of the view that refixation of land value made by the learned Sub Judge was reasonable. The portion of the property was valued by adopting method of capitalisation of income. We notice that it is multiplier of 12 which has been adopted by the learned Sub Judge. Submission of Smt.Latha T.Thankappan, the learned senior Government Pleader that the learned Subordinate Judge was wrong in adopting multiplier of 12 is certainly supported by the decision reported in Airports Authority of India v. Satyagopal Roy & others (AIR 2002 SC 1423) and also the judgment of this LAA.No.745/2009 2 court in State of Kerala v. Yesodharan (2005 (3) KLT 408). However, we notice from the impugned judgment that the learned Sub Judge has relied on the judgment of this court in LAA No.247/2000, a Bench authored by Justice J.B.Koshy. It has been held in that judgment that considering the age of the coffee, pepper and arecanut plants, etc. multiplier of 12 fixed cannot be stated to be on a higher side. It has been held under that judgment that while fixing the multiplier, the nature of the plant is one of the important consideration which should be looked into. We find that it is following that judgment, the learned Sub Judge has adopted multiplier of 12. In the facts and circumstances attending on this case and having regard to the well known reality that the land in Wayanad District is very fertile, we do not find warrant for interference with the adoption of multiplier of 12 in this case. The appeal will stand dismissed. No costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk