STATE OF KERALA Vs. THE MALAYALAM PLANTATIONS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the State against the decision of the Sub -Court, Kottarakara enhancing by a sum of Rs 98,011 -07 the compensation payable for the land acquired. The Respondent has filed a cross -objection claiming a further sum of Rs. 2,87,088. For the purpose of blasting and collecting rubbles for the Parappur Dam of Kallada Irrigation Project an extent of 883 hectares of dry land in Survey No. 1/8 of Edamon Village was acquired under the emergency provision of the Land Acquisition Act The land is situate by the side of Trivandrum -Shencottah Road a little away from Tenmala junction where the road from Quilon joins. The Respondent submitted a statement claiming land value at Rs. 80 per cent, value of improvements of Rs. 28,536 -66. value of granite Rs. 3,57,871 and a sum of Rs. 30,000 towards injurious affection of the rest of the land belonging to the Respondent. On the whole Rs. 5,90.959 was claimed as compensation. The Land Acquisition Officer after conducing an award enquiry assessed the land value at Rs. 27.50 per Are. That worked out at Rs. 24,282 -50 as land value. Rs. 15, 301 was assessed as value of improvements. Adding solatium at IS percent and interest from the date of dispossession i.e., 30th January 1971 to the date of the award a sum of Rs. 47,616.23 was awarded as compensation. Dissatisfied with this award the claimant applied for reference and the Sub -Court, Kottarakkara enquired into the reference.

(2.) THE main objection taken before the lower court to the award was that the land value awarded is too low compared to the market value of the land, that the value awarded for the timber is too low and that the granite rock available in the land has got a saleable value which should have been valued separately and paid for. The lower court issued a Commission to find oat the cubic content of the rock in the acquired land. An Advocate Commissioner, A.W. 4 visited the property and after necessary measurements estimated the cubic content of the rock as 712,500 cubic metres. The lower court was of the view that the value of the granite rock should be paid for and granite rock area should not be valued on a centage basis like any other land. So holding the value was fixed taking into account the amount claimed by the Respondent for the quantity that could, as per the Respondent's statement, be extracted. That is to say, the Respondent's witness had stated in his deposition that 2,500,000 cubic metres of rubble could be extracted from the acquired land and for that they had claimed a value of Rs. 3,57.871. The quantity estimated by the Commissioner is only 712,500 cubic metres. This comes to only 57/200 of the estimate made by the claimant's witness. So the lower court fixed the value of granite rock at 3,57,871 Ã - 57/200 which works out at Rs. 1,02,493. This works out at less than Re. 1 per 100 eft. rubble. That was considered to be reasonable by the lower court and the same was awarded. The area covered by the granite rock was 1577 acres. The Land Acquisition Officer had awarded value for this on a centage basis at Rs 27 -50 per Are (11 -235 per cent). As the value for the granite rock was found payable on a quantitative basis, the lower court found that the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer for 15.77 acres amounting to Rs. 17,717.59 should be deducted. On deducting this the compensation for granite rock was fixed as Rs. 1,02,493 - -17,719 -59=Rs. 84,775 -41. To this was added Rs. 13.235 66 as enhanced compensation for the trees for the following reason. After acquisition the trees in the acquired land were sold in auction by the Kerala Irrigation Division Project Office on 13th February 1972. A sum of Rs. 30.500 was realised. This was found to be a reasonable and fair price for the value of the trees in the acquired land. The claim of the Respondent was only Rs. 28,536.66 for trees which is less than the amount realised at the auction. So the lower court found that the full amount claimed by the Respondent should be paid for trees. The Land Acquisition Officer has paid only Rs. 15,301. So the balance of Rs. 13,235.66 mentioned above was also found payable as additional value of trees. In the result a total of Rs. 98,011.07 was awarded as additional compensation by the lower court. It is this that is challenged in the appeal. In the cross -appeal the Respondent has claimed an enhanced value for the land at Rs. 52.50 per cent for the non -rocky area of 6 acres percents and for the rocky area at Rs. 2 per 100 eft. for 712,500 cubic metres. The enhanced compensation claimed by the Respondent is Rs. 2,87,088. The question for consideration is whether any additional amount should be paid for the land where there is no rock, and what, if any, is the value to be awarded for the granite portion of the area acquired.

(3.) THE learned Advocate General's argument based on Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (Central Act LXVII of 1957) which requires a licence to be taken for quarrying -gravel, a minor mineral, and that based en Land Conservancy Act do not affect the principle of valuation or the Question of payment of value to the quarry. The acquisition steps proceed on the basis that the land including the rocks absolutely belong to the Respondent. If the Advocate General's argument is correct, the acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act was unnecessary. That is not the legal poison. License or permission, if any, under those Ads to Mast and collect rubble may be a factor to be reckoned in fixing or reducing the value payable, but they do not totally negative payment of any compensation for a quarry acquired under the Land Acquisition Act.