Kerala High Court
M. Muhammed Moosa vs State on 8 June, 2009
Author: Pius C.Kuriakose
Bench: Pius C.Kuriakose, P.Q.Barkath Ali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 1012 of 2001()
1. M. MUHAMMED MOOSA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.PHILIP MATHEW
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :08/06/2009
O R D E R
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
------------------------
L.A.A.No.1012 OF 2001 &
L.A.A.Nos.63,121,137 & 138/2002
------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of March, 2009
JUDGMENT
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.
All these appeals pertain to acquisition of land for the purpose of Karapuzha Irrigation Project. Relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 24/10/1991. The appellants are close relatives and members of the same family and the property was enjoyed by all the appellants as one holding. Since there existed fruits bearing trees and plants including coffee on the acquired properties, the land acquisition officer as well as the reference court under the impugned judgment determined the market value of the acquired properties adopting the method of capitalization of income from the trees. One of the grounds prominently raised in the memorandum of appeal is that the court below went wrong in adopting a multiplier of 8 only for determining the value by capitalization of income. It is urged that proper multiplier to be adopted in this case is 15. Alternatively, it is urged that there is evidence to hold that the L.A.A.No.1012/01 & Con. cases. 2 land value of the properties acquired at the relevant time is Rs.15,000/- per Are and it is further urged that the total compensation may be determined by adopting the method of land value, in case if this court does not become inclined to adopt a multiplier of 15 for determining the value by capitalization method.
2. We have heard the submissions of Sri.Philip Mathew, learned counsel for the appellant and those of Sri.P.K.Babu, learned senior Government Pleader for the respondents.
3. Sri.Philip Mathew would take us to the salient aspects of the evidence in these cases. When we told him that it will be difficult for this court to adopt multiplier higher than 10 for determining the market value by capitalization method, the learned counsel would submit that if that be so, this court may rely on the documents produced by the appellant before the reference court and fix the market value of the land, so that the land value method which is more advantageous to the claimant can be followed. He drew our attention to Ext.A3, which is a pre- notification document.
4. The learned senior Government Pleader submitted that L.A.A.No.1012/01 & Con. cases. 3 there will not be much opposition for adoption of a multiplier of 12 in this case where the acquired properties are in Wayanad District. He would oppose the suggestion that the land value method be adopted relying on Ext.A3. According to him, in Ext.A3 it was a fancy price, which was paid by the purchaser Vyapari Vyavasai Ekopana Samithi who were in keen on acquiring a small plot of land extending to 3 cents only in the heart of the town. Acquired property is not comparable to the property revealed in Ext.A3.
5. We have very anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar in the light of the evidence which is available in the case. Exts.A1 and A2 were post notification documents and could not have been relied on for determining the market value of the property. Ext.A3 is a document executed prior to Section 4 (1) notification. The distance between the acquired property in this case and the property covered by Ext.A3 is not more than 200 metres. At the same time, we find it difficult to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the acquired property and Ext.A3 property are comparable. Ext.A3 pertains to small plot situated in the heart L.A.A.No.1012/01 & Con. cases. 4 area of the Meenangadi town. We have some reason to think that the Kerala Vyapari Vyavasai Ekopana Samithi, who were keen on purchasing Ext.A3 property for accomplishing their cherished wish of acquiring a office in the heart of the town, were willing to pay the price demanded by the purchaser. But, at the same time, we find some merit in the submissions of Sri.Philip Mathew that the acquired property also had some commercial potentialities. We are of the view, taking all relevant inputs into consideration, that Ext.A3 itself can be relied on and the market value of the acquired properties in this case can be safely fixed at Rs.6750/- per Are.
6. Accordingly, we refix the value of all the properties acquired in all these appeals at Rs.6750/- per Are. The compensation payable to the appellant will stand redetermined on that basis. The judgments and decrees under appeals will stand modified to the above extent.
7. It is needless to mention that the appellant will be entitled for all statutory benefits under Section 23(2), 23(1A) and Section 28 of the Land acquisition Act on the total enhanced compensation which becomes admissible to the appellant by L.A.A.No.1012/01 & Con. cases. 5 virtue of our refixation of the compensation. It is also needless to mention that since we have substituted the method of determination of compensation by capitalization method by the land value method, whatever is paid to the appellant adopting the capitalization method will be deducted from the total compensation admissible under the land value method.
The appeals will stand allowed to the above extent. But, in the circumstances of the case, parties are directed to suffer their costs.
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE dpk L.A.A.No.1012/01 & Con. cases. 6 PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
------------------------
L.A.A.No.1012 OF 2001 & L.A.A.Nos.63,121,137 & 138/2002
------------------------
JUDGMENT 8TH JUNE 2009