K V GOURI Vs. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimants are in appeal. THEir lands lying contiguously in Manantheri village of Kuthuparamba were acquired for the purpose of constructing an Industrial Growth Centre by the KSIDC.

(2.) IN L.A.A.112/04, an extent of 7.26 Acres of claimants' land was acquired pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 26/05/95. For the aforesaid 7.26 Acres (the area covered with bearing rubber trees and the remaining area as dry land), the Land value was fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of Rs.250/- per cent. Adopting capitalization method Rs.7,36,252/- was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer for bearing tapping Rubber Trees. Besides towards value of non-bearing trees Rs.1,896/- was also awarded.

(3.) SRI.B.Krishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants has also drawn our attention to the Commission Report where the Commissioner has assessed the yield from Rubber Trees. It is stated that test tapping was also conducted by the Advocate Commissioner. Moreover, the evidence given by an officer of the Rubber Board was also relied upon. It was also stated that the claimants had actually availed of loan from the Rubber Board for development of the Rubber plantation. However, it was noticed that the Advocate Commissioner has adopted 20 as the multiplier. Besides, the Commissioner has deducted only 15% towards maintenance charges. Learned Subordinate Judge has found that the yield and income estimated by the Advocate Commissioner is an exaggerated one. Not only that it is submitted by SRI.Joby Cyriac, the learned Standing Counsel for the Requisitioning Authority that the Advocate Commissioner has conducted test tapping of only about 10 trees. The value fixed by the Advocate Commissioner adopting capitalisation method did not inspire the learned Subordinate Judge.