LAWS(KER)-1977-3-22

STATE OF KERALA Vs. CHACKO

Decided On March 14, 1977
STATE OF KERALA Appellant
V/S
CHACKO Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are appeals by the State of Kerala against the decision of the court below in L. A.O. Ps 215 of 1971 and 492 of 1971. These cases were tried along with a number of other cases and a common judgment has been delivered by the learned Subordinate Judge. We have today disposed of appeals against the other cases independently. We have taken up these cases separately because, unlike in the other cases, the State has not chosen to file objections to the commissioner's report on the basis of which market value has been found by the court below. At the hearing learned Advocate General urged very serious objection to the commissioner's report and particularly the method of crop cutting experiment conducted by the commissioner. Possibly this objection could have been valid and might have influenced this Court to remit the case back to the court below for fresh consideration had such objection been taken before the court below. In the absence of objection to the method adopted and in the absence of any evidence to show that the commissioner's report ought not to have been acted upon it is not for this Court to set aside the report or to set aside the judgment of the court below based upon such report. The court below has accepted the report and determined the market value on the basis of 16 years' net income.

(2.) In both these appeals objections to the commissioner's report were filed in this Court with a petition that these objections may be accepted. We have gone through these petitions. Absolutely no reason is shown why these objections could not have been filed in the court below at the proper time. We would have expected a more detailed petition placing before court all material which would be relevant in considering whether the failure to file objections was bona fide. If it was due to sheer negligence of those who conducted the case, it is not for us to reopen the case at the instance of the State. It is more so because it would be unfair to the claimants to do so, now that all evidence of the trees in the lands has disappeared by reason of the area submerging in water. Hence we see no reason to entertain the objections. Consequently the appeals are dismissed.

(3.) There is a cross objection in L. A. A. 50 of 1975. An important question is raised by the respondent in the cross objection and that is urged with considerable force by learned Sri. Balakrishna Menon appearing for the respondent. In all the cases which came up before us relating to acquisitions in the same area for the same purpose we have determined market value by adopting 16 years' net income as the basis. But it is the case of the respondent that 20 years' net income ought to have been adopted and that alone would be adequate as the market value of the property. The question had engaged attention of this Court on previous occasions. A Full Bench of this Court had occasion to consider in Rarukutty v. Special Tahsildar & L A Officer, ( 1973 KLT 573 ) the multiple to be adopted Even 16 times' net income is not a universal rule. It may be less in appropriate cases. It would not be possible to lay down any rule as to what should be the number of years to be taken into account to determine the market value in regard to any particular item of property. That depends upon the nature of the property.