VISHNU NAMBOODIRI Vs. NARAYANAN NAMBOODIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. S. No. 614/71 is filed by parties 6 to 9 and A. S. No. 637/71 is filed by party No. 2 in LAR. No. 28 of 1965 on the file of the subordinate Judge's Court, Irinjalakuda. 1 acre 811/4 cents of land in Sy. No. 215/9 of Velookara Village, mukundapuram Taluk was acquired by the Government for the use of Nadavaramba English High School and Secondary School. Notification under S. 2 (1) of the Cochin Land Acquisition act (corresponding to) S. 3 (1) of the Kerala Act) was published in the Gazette on 10th October 196 1. Parties 1 and 6 to 9, who are the landlords, claimed Rs. 150 per cent as land value and also claimed value for the improvements. Party No. 2, the verumpattom tenant, claimed land value at Rs. 500 per cent and also the entire value of improvements. The Land Acquisition Officer valued the land at Rs. 35 per cent and separately valued the building, well and trees. He did not apportion the compensation. Dissatisfied with this the respective appellants asked for reference and the lower court enhanced the land value to Rs. 60 per cent, coconut trees were valued on a capitalised basis of their income, the other trees were valued on timber value basis and the total compensation was fixed at rs. 24,070. 10 This was apportioned between the respective appellants as follows: The land value as enhanced cams to Rs. 10,875. 7/ 8th of it,i. e. , Rs 9,515. 60 was directed to be paid to parties Nos. 1 and 6 to 9 who are the jenmies of the land. The balance 1/8th was directed to be paid to party No. 2 who is the verumpattomdar of the land. This apportionment was based on S 20 of the Cochin Verumpattomdars Act. The value of improvements, namely coconut trees, jack trees and bamboo clusters was apportioned in the ratio of 3:1 between the second party and parties Nos. 1 and 6 to 9. The entire value of the well, the cost of fencing and shed and the other items of improvements were directed to be paid to the second party alone. Both sides are dissatisfied with the enhancement and party No. 2 is also dissatisfied with the apportionment and the above appeals are filed in these circumstances.

(2.) THE first point arising for consideration relates to the further enhancement of compensation claimed by each set of appellants. Under the Land Acquisition Act the market value of the land has to be determined adopting a method which will fetch the maximum compensation to the persons interested in the land. But, that does not mean that the land value can be fixed as a vacant site and the trees standing thereon valued on the principle of capitalisation of the income from them. If the land value is fixed on the basis of the extent and as a vacant site only timber value of the trees can be reckoned in fixing the compensation. If the value is fixed on the basis of a capitalisation of the income, separate land value cannot be awarded. THEre may be an exception to this in a case where the trees are not spread over the entire area acquired but only in a portion of it. In the latter case it is permissible to fix the compensation on the principle of capitalisation of the income and deduct from the land value separately fixed, the value of the extent for the standing space of the trees. In this case little attention is paid by the Land Acquisition Officer or by the lower court to any of these principles. As stated earlier, the full area acquired is valued as a vacant site. THE trees are valued on the principle of capitalisation of income and the aggregate of all these is taken as the market value of the land acquired. So doing 1 acre 811/4 cents has been valued at Rs. 24,070. 10 which will be a compensation on the high side if any one of the methods referred to above had been adhered to. But, there is no objection to the compensation fixed and therefore the question of reducing the compensation does not arise. THE only question is whether any further enhancement has to be allowed. THE appellants have relied on Ext. P-4, a registered assignment deed for JO cents of land sold for a consideration of rs. 3,500. Ext. P-4 is one year after the notification. THE property comprised in it consists of land and a building. THEre is no acceptable evidence in respect or the value of the building and the lower court was therefore right in not placing any reliance on it in fixing the land value. THE only other evidence is the Commissioner's report, Ext. C-1, filed by pw. 4, the Commissioner. According to that report, the property can be valued at Rs. 300 per cent. THE commissioner has not referred to or considered any transaction in the neighbourhood. His estimate is based only on the information gathered by him from some persons in the locality. It is only a guess work and the court below was therefore right in not accepting it. No other evidence is referred to by the appellants to prove the market value. As stated earlier, the compensation already allowed by the lower court is more than reasonable and no further increase of it is called for. Hence, the appellants are not entitled to any enhancement in the compensation.

(3.) IN the result, A. S. No. 614/71 is dismissed; A. S. No. 637/71 is allowed to this limited extent, namely that the compensation amount fixed by the lower _court will be drawn by parties 6 to 9 and party No. 2 as follows:-Parties 6 to 9 are entitled to draw Rs. 46 and 15 per cent solatium thereon and party No. 2 is entitled to draw the remaining sum of Rs. 24,024 and solatium. INterest at the usual rate on the compensation enhanced by the court below is also due to the respective parties from the date of dispossession to the date of deposit. IN the nature of this case all the parties shall suffer their costs. . .