VARGHESE CHACKO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An extent of 0.2340 hectres in RS No. 741/14 of Muttil Village belonged to the Government and was in its possession. It is clear from the materials that the various authorities concerned would have been easily aware of the fact that this land would be required for the purpose of the Karapuzha Irrigation Project. Notwithstanding this position, the land was assigned to the appellant claimant on 22.2.1977. The patta issued to him has been withheld by the claimant from the court. Two years after that assignment, the State notified the land for acquisition under S.3(1) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act. The notification was published on 30.10.1979. The claimant contended that he was the absolute owner of the property and was entitled to compensation for the land at the market rate as on the date of the notification and he was also entitled to compensation for the improvements standing in the property. All these claims were conceded though not as demanded by the claimant and a sum of Rs. 12,714.91 was awarded by the Awarding Officer. The property was taken possession of on 25.2.1980. Being not satisfied with the compensation awarded the claimant sought a reference under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Before the court he claimed that the compensation awarded was too low, that in response to S.9(3) of the Act he had preferred a claim for Rs. 87,000/- as compensation and that he was entitled to get it. He claimed before the court that the income adopted by the land Acquisition Officer was too low and the valuation of the various improvements had been made without any necessary date or material and hence the award could not be sustained. The claim was opposed by the State contending that fair and reasonable compensation had been paid to the claimant. The garden land was valued on the basis of the improvements and the improvements were valued with reference to their age and yield.

(2.) In support of his claim, the claimant examined himself and examined a Commissioner who had visited the property at this instance. He also marked the price list of coffee issued by the Coffee Board for the periods 1978 - 79 to 1980 - 81. On the side of the State Special Revenue Inspector was examined as RW1. Though the report of the Commissioner is seen marked as Ext. C1 in the evidence the same has not been included in the appendix to the judgment of the court below. The court below on an appreciation of the circumstances, held that the list of total improvements furnished in the award made by the Awarding Officer was correct. It also found that the value of coffee assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer has to be treated as fair and reasonable. It also found fair and reasonable, the yearly yield estimated by the Land Acquisition Officer for pepper vines. It also found that the Land Acquisition Officer had applied an exorbitant multiplier and the multiplier to be applied is only 10. It therefore held that the claimant was not entitled to get enhancement of compensation on any head but that he was entitled to get enhancement of solatium at 30% on the amount fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer as provided under S.23(2) of Act 68 of 1984, less the amount as fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer as provided under S.23(1)(a) of the Act. Being dissatisfied with the refusal of the court below to award him enhancement of compensation the claimant has approached this court.

(3.) The court below has found that the yield assessed and the market value adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer was reasonable and fair and the evidence adduced by the claimant did not entitle him to claim any enhancement on that ground. It also found that in adopting a multiplier of 16 the Land Acquisition Officer has erred on the side of the claimant since the proper multiplier to apply was only 10. Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that for determining the compensation due for the coffee plants the price of coffee as published by the Coffee Board must be adopted and the report of the Commissioner should have been made the basis for assessing the yield to find a higher compensation for the claimant. The court below refused to rest its award on the report of the Commissioner for the obvious reason that the Commissioner had visited the property seven years after the date of S.3(1) notification and he would have had no opportunity either to assess the yield of the trees and the plants that were actually lost or of trees and plants that existed on the date of the notification under S.3(1) of the Act. I am not satisfied that in so doing, the court below has committed any error warranting interference by this court.