MATHEW S/O.ISAC PUTHENTHARAYIL PALLIPPURAM CHERTHALA Vs. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR INDUSTRIAL GROWTH CENTRE CHERTHALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimant is the appellant. His lands (dry lands as well as wetlands) were acquired by the Government pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 24/01/97 for the purpose of Industrial Growth Centre at Pallippuram. THE dry lands were categorised in category-1 as well as category-3 (dry lands having road frontage and dry lands having no road frontage). Wet lands were also categorised into two categories, the Nilams having road frontage and Nilams without road frontage and included in category-5 and 6. THE learned Subordinate Judge accepted the appellant's claim that the entire dry lands belonging to him should have been included in category-1 as dry lands with road frontage and land value was awarded accordingly. THE appellant's claim was that the lands which were treated as Nilams were actually not Nilams but were reclaimed lands. Learned Subordinate Judge did not accept this claim. However, the learned Subordinate Judge found that as the entire property of the appellant was being enjoyed by the appellant as a single holding and as the properties were lying contiguously the entire Nilams can be treated as Nilam with road frontage. Accordingly the value of the Nilams was re-fixed by the Reference Court as Rs. 4,609/- per Are.

(2.) ONE ground which is seriously pursued before us by Sri.J.Omprakash, the learned counsel for the appellant was that the property treated by the Land Acquisition Officer and the Reference Court as wet lands were actually reclaimed lands. He referred to Ext.A4 Solvency Certificate in which Ext.A5 mortgage deed wherein the entire property (dry land as well as wetlands) belonging to the appellant is described as Sthalam - land. The argument of Sri.Omprakash was that the entire property should have been treated as dry lands and for the so called Nilams also the value finally given for dry lands Rs. 29,982/- per Are should have been awarded.

(3.) WE have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. WE have made a survey of the materials to which our attention was drawn by the learned counsel in their submissions. WE were carefully gone through the Mahazar. The Mahazar reveals that in the portions treated by the Land Acquisition Officer and the Reference Court as wet land (Nilam), there were sixteen sand dunes in which the appellant had planted sixteen coconut saplings of height one metre. WE estimate that these sixteen saplings occupy an extent of 1.65 Ares of land. The planting of coconut saplings were not done in a scientific manner. WE are of the view that for the above portion of wetland (Nilam) extending to 1.65 Ares the appellant can be awarded a rate of Rs. 29,982/- per Are.