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. 511 of 2009() ------------------------- LAR.48/2003 of SUB COURT, SULTHAN BATHERY .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.BABU RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT ----------------------- MARY, W/O. LATE GEORGE, KOODAKKATTIL HOUSE, P.O. NELLARACHAL. 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.511 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. Sri.P.K.Babu, learned senior Government Pleader has addressed us strenuously and extensively. He argued that the adoption of multiplier of 12 by the learned Subordinate Judge for determining the compensation payable for the Coffee plantation under acquisition is against 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). 2. We have gone through the above judgments. It is seen that this court in State of Kerala v. Yesodharan (2 005(3) KLT 408) has only followed the judgment of the Supreme Court in Airports Authority of India v. Satyagopal Roy and others ( AIR 2002 Supreme Court 1423). The Supreme Court had laid down as an abstract proposition of law that when market value of land having fruit bearing trees is LAA.No.511/09 2 determined, the multiplier to be adopted shall not exceed 8. It is not discernible from the judgment of the Supreme Court as to what was the nature of plantation under acquisition in that case. But we notice that the Division Bench of this court in a common judgment in L.A.A.No.799/1999 series dealing specifically with the determination of the market value of a coffee plantation has observed as follows : “ Considering the age of the coffee plants, pepper and arecanut trees, longevity of those plants etc. 12 multiplier fixed cannot be stated to be on the higher side. While fixing the multiplier, the nature of the plant is one of the important consideration that should be looked into. The reference court has fixed 12 as the multiplier considering all those relevant factors and we see no ground to interfere with the impugned judgments.” 3. We are in agreement with the view of the Division Bench that nature of the plantation is also a relevant consideration while fixing the proper multiplier to be adopted for determining the market value by capitalisation method. It is not disputed that the coffee plants LAA.No.511/09 3 which existed on the estate under acquisition were relatively young. We feel that in the circumstances of this case, the multiplier of 12 adopted by the learned Subordinate Judge repelling the claim for adoption of 15 as the multiplier is reasonable. The next question to be considered is whether the enhancement in land value granted by the reference court warrants interference. The original rate granted by the office was Rs.979.65 and now it is refixed to Rs. 1279.65. The above finding of the learned Subordinate Judge is based on evidence and at any rate is reasonable. The result of the above discussion is that the appeal will stand dismissed. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. LAA.No.511/09 4