Kerala High Court
Chami vs The Special Tahsildar on 31 March, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH
THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017/19TH SRAVANA, 1939
LA.App..No. 769 of 2013 ()
---------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN LAR 19/2008 of SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM
DATED 31-03-2011
APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:-
----------------------
CHAMI,AGED 78 YEARS,
SON OF RAMAN,
NILATHUMARE VEEDU, THENKARA, MANNARKKAD.
BY ADVS.SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:-
---------------------------
1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,
LA(G)NO.II, PALAKKAD-628001.
2. THE SECRETARY,
THENKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
THENKARA, MANNARKAD, PALAKKAD - 628 001.
BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.AMMINIKUTTY K.
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
7-08-2017, THE COURT ON 10/8/2017 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
LAA NO.769/2013
APPENDIX
APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS
ANNEXURE 1: TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL RECORDS SHOWING
DISCHARGE FROM ALSHIFA HOSPITAL, PERINTHALMANNA DATED
21.12.2007.
//True Copy//
PS to Judge
Rp
A.M. SHAFFIQUE & K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH, JJ.
===============================
LAA No. 769 of 2013
==================
Dated this, the 10th day of August, 2017
J U D G M E N T
Shaffique, J.
This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging judgment dated 31/3/2011 in LAR No.19/2008.
2. The short facts involved in the above appeal are as under:-
An extent of 52.48 Ares of property belonging to the claimant was acquired pursuant to notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'LA Act') published on 29/7/2006. The Land Acquisition Officer (for short 'LAO') fixed land value at `8,436/- and value of trees at `7,15,475/-.
3. The claimant objected to the Award and the matter was referred to the Sub Court under Section 18 of the LA Act. According to the claimant, the land should have fetched a value of LAA No.769/13 -:2:- `25,000/- to `30,000/- per cent. The land is situated in an important residential area within the close proximity of hospital, college, school, sub registry office, post office etc. There were 375 rubber trees and 20 teak trees in the property. According to him, the rubber trees would fetch `4,000/- and teak trees `6,000/- per tree.
4. The Reference Court considered the above case along with another case LAR No.18/2008. Common evidence was adduced. Oral testimony consists of the deposition of PW1. Claimants relied upon Exts.A1 to A3 documents and Exts.X1 to X2
(a) were marked as court exhibits. The Commission report with reference to the claimant's case was marked as Ext.X1(a) and the plan submitted by the Advocate Commissioner as Ext.X2(a).
5. The notes to Award indicated that the value of land was fixed adopting capitalization method that is valuing the yield from the improvements for a period of 10 years after deducting the cultivation expenses. The standing space for the tree was fixed at 0.22 Ares. The balance extent was separately valued at `7,28,704/- per hectare. The Court below found that other than the oral testimony of AW1, there is no evidence to show the yield LAA No.769/13 -:3:- of trees, in order to arrive at the conclusion that the claimant was entitled for a higher value. In Ext.X1(a), report of the Advocate Commissioner, he noticed that the property was having only 225 rubber trees. Therefore, the Court below found that the contention that there were 375 trees in the property was not correct. In the statement filed by the respondent, the yield was calculated at 6.3 kilogram and the value of latex from each tree was fixed at `525.50 per year. `35 per kilogram was deducted as cultivation expense and therefore the income from each tree was calculated at `315/-. The net income was multiplied with number of trees and valuation of land was fixed. The standing space for each tree was fixed at 0.22 Ares. The Reference Court found that no evidence was adduced in order to enhance the capitalization value as fixed by the LAO. In respect of the land value also, it was fixed at `2,950.22 per cent by the LAO, which was not accepted by the Reference Court. The LAO reduced 15% from the value of the basic document. It was found that the deduction of 15% was unreasonable and therefore the value of land was fixed at `3,470.84 per cent as shown in the basic document. Though the claimant had produced some documents especially Exts.A1 to A3, LAA No.769/13 -:4:- Exts.A1 and A2 were subsequent to Section 4(1) notification. Ext.A3 was a document of the year 2003. The property involved in Ext.A3 document was having a building. There was nothing to indicate the value of building and therefore Ext.A3 was not taken into consideration. In the said circumstance, the claimant was only entitled for enhancement in the land value and was not entitled for any other enhancement taking into consideration the capitalization method.
We do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment and, accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE Sd/-
K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH, JUDGE Rp //TRUE COPY// PS TO JUDGE