MATHAI PAULOSE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The above appeals arise out of the common judgment of the 2nd Additional Sub-Judge, Ernakulam in LAR Nos. 188, 191 and 190 of 1981. The acquisition was for the purpose of storage space for water for the Periyar Valley Irrigation Project. Notification under S. 3 (1) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act was published on 10-10-1978. The award in the first two cases was passed on November 13,1979 and in the third, on September 7, 1979. Possession of the land involved in LAR Nos. 188 and 191 of 1981 was taken on November 13, 1979 and of the land involved in LAR No. 190 of 1981 on September 12, 1979.

(2.) THE lands involved are partly dry and partly wet. THE claimants demanded payment of land value at the rate of Rs. 375 per cent for dry land and Rs. 600 per cent for wet land. THEy also demanded payment of the value of improvements including buildings, trees like coconut and arecanut, pepper vines and others. THE Land Acquisition Officer awarded the land value at the rate of Rs. 250/- per Acre for dry land and Rs. 400/- per Acre for wet land. He also awarded value for the improvements after deducting centage for the land occupied by these improvements. In calculating the value of improvements by way of coconut trees, arecanut trees and pepper vines, the Land Acquisition Officer adopted the method of capitalisation of the net income. After making allowance for droppings and expenses, he calculated the net annual income with reference to what according to him was the prevailing market rate for the commodity in question. He multiplied the net yield by twenty to arrive at the value of the improvements.

(3.) THE claimants who are not satisfied with the enhancement made by the court, and are ambitious to get larger amounts by way of compensation for these improvements, have filed the appeals. As stated earlier, the only question arising in these appeals, and which was argued before us by their counsel Mr. M. V. Ibrahimkutty with much emphasis, was about the compensation payable for the improvements, namely, coconut trees, arecanut trees, and pepper vines. His argument was that the court should have adopted the same multiple of twenty, namely that adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer, and should not have reduced it to sixteen in determining the compensation.