STATE OF KERALA Vs. A R SULAIMAN SAIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the State against the decision of the Alleppey Sub Court in L. A. R. No. 54 of 1970. An area of 6 acres of land comprised in two survey numbers, 511/1-11 and 512/C3-2, situated in the Alleppey Village was acquired by the Government for the purpose of construction of South Police Quarters, Alleppey. S.3 Notification was issued on 8-4-1969 and the State took possession on 15-7-1970. Pattadars, namely plaintiffs 1 to 10, who were in actual possession of the land, claimed compensation at the rats of Rs. 1,200/- per cent. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 940/-per cent for 38 cents adjoining the road and at the rate of Rs. 750/-per cent for the remaining area of 5 acres 62 cents. From the amount so fixed, a sum of Rs. 6,894.74 was deducted towards reclamation charges. The value of the land in actual occupation of the kudikidappukars, (25 in number) amounting to Rs. 20,460.58 was farther deducted. The balance comes to Rs. 4,29,864.67. A sum of Rs. 7,108.95 towards timber value of trees in the property acquired was added to this figure. Thus, a total compensation of Rs. 4,36,973. 62 was awarded to the plaintiffs towards land value and value of trees. The buildings were separately valued.. Adding the value of the buildings and a solatium of 15%, a grand total of Rs. 5,02,519.66 was awarded to the plaintiffs. Dissatisfied with this award, the plaintiffs moved for a reference under S.20 of the Land Acquisition Act, to the Sub Court. Alleppey. The Sub Court took the view that the valuation by the belt system was bad and had been deprecated by the High Court and hence fixed a uniform rate of Rs. 1,000/- per cent for the entire area claimed by the plaintiffs. The court below also took the view that the value fixed for the trees was very inadequate and, accepting the commissioner's report and evidence regarding the value of the trees, held that a further sum of Rs. 63,317/- was due to the plaintiffs. In conformity with these conclusions, a decree was passed. It is against this decree that the State has filed the appeal.

(2.) Three points were raised in the appeal by the learned Government Pleader. One was that when the land with trees was valued at a particular amount percent, trees could not be separately valued on a capitalised basis and the value thereof included in the compensation. According to him, if the capitalised value of the trees was to be taken as the compensation, proportionate area for the space occupied by the trees should not be valued separately; or, in other words, when compensation for trees was awarded on a capitalised basis, the value for the space occupied by the trees should be deducted from the total compensation. His second contention was that the court below was wrong in taking the view that the valuation by belts could not be adopted in fixing the market value of a large area in an urban locality. His further contention was that the award of compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per cent for the entire area acquired was very excessive.

(3.) Coming to the first point, the contention of the State, namely, that when the entire area was valued on a centage basis as vacant land, valuation of trees separately on a capitalised basis without deducting the value of the space occupied by such trees should not be made, seems to be correct. This question came up for decision before this Court in the case reported in State of Kerala v. Mariamma Abraham ( AIR 1969 Ker. 265 ). At page 271 it has been held that: