IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2009 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1931 LA.App..No. 185 of 2002() ------------------------- LAR.27/1996 of SUB COURT, SULTHAN BATHERY .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- K.SUKUMARAN, S/O.CHETTIAR, AGED 49 YEARS DOING AGRICULTURE, KIZHAKKEKARA HOUSE, PURAKKADI VILLAGE, MEENAGADI, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP MATHEW SRI.G.G.MANOJ RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD, KALPETTA. 2. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), KRP/BSIP, KALPETTA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.BABU THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.185 of 2002 ------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The claimant is in appeal against the judgment and decree of the land acquisition reference court. The property under acquisition was plantation mainly coffee, pepper and arecanut. The market value was determined by adopting a method of capitalization of income. The reference court adopted the multiplier of 8. The reference court turned down the appellant's claim for compensation for injurious affection on the reason that no satisfactory evidence is adduced by the claimant. 2. Heard Sri.Philip Mathew, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.P.K.Babu, learned senior Government Pleader. Drawing out attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner – cum – Land Acquisition Officer, Bellary v. S.T.Pompanna Setty (AIR 2005 Supreme Court 749), Sri.Philip Mathew submitted that the Supreme Court has taken a clear view in the above decision, relatively a recent one, that the ideal multiplier to be adopted for yielding trees acquired is 10 L.A.A..No.185/2002 2 and not 8. He also drew our attention to the judgment of a Division Bench of this court in L.A.A No.247/2000, wherein this court held that while plantations are valued on the basis of capitlisation of income, the nature of the trees, their longevity and such other relevant aspects are also to be taken into account and the decision of the reference court adopting multiplier of 12 for coffee plantation was approved. Sri.Philip Mathew submitted that the appellant did not get adequate opportunity for adducing evidence regrading his claim for injurious affection. 3. Though the submissions of Sri.Philip Mathew were resisted by the learned senior Government Pleader, he would lastly submit that in the event of this court becoming inclined to pass order of remand, the Government also should be given an opportunity to adduce courter evidence. 4. Having regard to the principles emerging from the judgment of the Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this court in L.A.A. No.247/2000, we feel that the court below is to take fresh decision regarding the correct multiplier to be adopted for valuing the acquired land. So also, we feel that the appellant can be afforded an opportunity to adduce further evidence to L.A.A..No.185/2002 3 substantiate his claim for compensation on account of injurious affection. 5. Accordingly, setting aside the judgment and decree, we remand the land acquisition reference case to the reference court. That court will permit the appellant to adduce further evidence and if further evidence is adduced by the appellant, the Government will be permitted to adduce counter evidence. Once the entire evidence comes on record that court will take fresh decision. While fixing the multiplier to be adopted for determining the value of land, principles emerging from the judgment of the Supreme Court in AIR 2005 Supreme Court 749(supra) and the judgment of the Division Bench in L.A.A. No. 247/2000 will also be kept in mind by the learned Judge. Refund full court fee paid on the appeal memorandum to the counsel for the appellant. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE dpk L.A.A..No.185/2002 4 PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------ L.A.A.No.185 of 2002 ------------------------ JUDGMENT 25TH MAY 2009