IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2010 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1932 AS.No. 534 of 1999(C) ------------------------------ OS.34/1983 of PRL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S): DEFENDANT NO.1 IN OS. ---------------------- STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.BABU RESPONDENT(S): PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANTS 2 & 3 IN OS. ------------------------- 1. T.P.JOSEPH, S/O. THOPPIL PORINCHU, AGED 55, M-10-1 ASOK NAGAR, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR 3. 2. E.KURIAN MATHEW, FORMERLY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, B&R DIVISION, THRISSUR, PRESENTLY GENERAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LIMITED, P.B. NO.404, THAIKKAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MANALUR PANCHAYAT, MANALUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. R3 BY ADVS. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.SREEDHARAN NAIR, SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY, SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR. THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... A.S.NO.534 OF 1999 ............................................. Dated this the 27th day of May, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Trichur in O.S.No.34/1983. The suit was one filed for recovery of possession on the strength of title with an alternative prayer for damages. The plaintiff did own 1 acre and 17 ½ cents of land as per a document of the year 1963. The Manalur panchayath demanded surrender of certain land for the purpose of formation of a road for which the plaintiff imposed certain conditions and while he was away, the panchayat trespassed into the plaint schedule property converting into a road by destroying 23 coconut trees which was standing in the property. So the plaintiff has moved the suit for recovery of possession on the strength of title or in the alternative one for damages. The defendants had resisted the claim on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation. The land has been handed over for the purpose of formation of a road by consent and there had been no damages caused to the : 2 : A.S.NO.534 OF 1999 property and so the suit is liable to be dismissed. Originally the suit was decreed and the matter came before this Court in appeal as A.S.No.290/1990. This Court disposed of the appeal with the direction as follows: “The plaintiff will produce his title deeds and if necessary, will take out a commission to identify his property in the newly formed Manalur-Palazhi road. After ascertaining the extent and identity , the lower Court will fix the centage value of the land and also value of improvements on the basis of evidence adduced. The defendants will also be free to adduce evidence in the matter.” 2. So by virtue of the decision of this Court by way of remand the point that crystallized for decision was only to find out the exact extent of land taken for the purpose of formation of the road with the improvements therein and then to fix the land value as well as the value of improvements. After the remand the plaintiff produced the title deed as Ext.A7 which is of the year 1963. As per the said document, the plaintiff had obtained title over a compact area of 1 acre and 17 ½ cents. Surveyor visited the property with the help of the Commissioner and demarcated the : 3 : A.S.NO.534 OF 1999 property that had been taken over for the purpose of formation of the road. The Government had taken possession of that land on 21.2.1978. Ext.A8 was produced to show that in the year 1988, 30 cents of land was sold for a consideration of Rs.1,50,000/= that is centage value of Rs.5,000/=. The court also found that the acquired land is situated near a post office and so one cannot say that it is an unimportant area. The court on the basis of the materials, with some guess proceeded to arrive at the value of the property. Ext.A8 property is sold after one decade at Rs.5,000/= per cent. There was no material available to show the comparison of land acquired under Ext.A8 and the plaint schedule property. Therefore considering the materials available, the court fixed the land value at Rs.1,000/= per cent and thus awarded a land value of Rs.22,000/=. Considering the fact that the property was taken over in 1978 and as the other land was acquired in 1988 that too without knowing the quality of the land, I cannot find fault with the learned Subordinate Judge for fixing the land value at Rs.1,000/= and by any stretch of : 4 : A.S.NO.534 OF 1999 imagination one cannot hold that it is an excess value. Then the court below proceeded to decide the value of improvements. The court found that from the entire compact area, a portion was taken for the road. Other portions are there standing with trees. There are about 80 coconut trees standing in the property . So considering the total extent as 1 acre and 17 ½ cents, the trial court has arrived at a reasonable finding of one coconut tree per cent. Therefore held that there would have been 22 yielding coconut trees at the time of the alleged taking of the land. The court also found that since the market value for the land is given, capitalization method need not be adopted and only value need to be awarded for the trees. Considering the period of 1978, the court below fixed a reasonable amount of Rs.750/= per tree thus fixing the centage value of Rs.1,750/= to arrive at the decision. Thereby the court fixed a total amount of Rs.38,500/= and then awarded reasonable interest of 6% from the date of suit till the realisation. On going through the entire materials, the court below has only analysed the matter in the : 5 : A.S.NO.534 OF 1999 correct perspective, taken reasonable centage value and granted fair price for the trees standing. Therefore the appeal filed by the Government does not merit consideration and so the appeal is dismissed but under the circumstances without order as to costs. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl : 6 : A.S.NO.534 OF 1999 M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... A.S.NO.534 OF 1999 ............................................. 27th day of May, 2010. J U D G M E N T