Kerala High Court · 2009

L.A.A.No.451/2004 & con.cases3with the increased tree value given to the claimant. There wasdelay in sending the references which were ultimately numberedas L.A.R. Nos. 254/99, 255/99,256/99, 257/99 & 258/99. Inthe meanwhile a Sub Court was established at Muvattupuzha.Therefore, the references were transferred to that Sub Court.Under the impugned judgment, the Sub Court Muvattupuzha hasanswered the references refixing the land value at Rs.1,000/-per Are following the judgment of this court in L.A.A. Nos.209/95& 213/95. However, when it came to redetermination of thevalue of the rubber tees standing on the properties underacquisition, that court did not become inclined to follow thejudgment of this court. According to that court, the rubber treesin L.A.R.Nos.254/99,255/99 & 256/99 were of bud variety. Thetrees in L.A.R. No.257/99 were of clonnel varieties and the treesin L.A.R. No.258/99 were of both clonnel and bud varieties. Thatcourt found that the income from bud variety rubber trees andclonel variety rubber trees will not be the same. It was noticedthat the clonel variety is the lowest yielding variety. The learnedSub Judge concluded on that basis that yield from the rubbertees in the properties involved in the five LAR cases was not L.A.A.No.451/2004 & con.cases4uniform and hence, according to the learned Sub Judge, withoutsufficient data regarding yield income from the trees cannot becalculated. The learned Sub Judge relied in this context, onthe judgment of this court in State of Kerala v. GeevargheseKathanar(1980 KLT 880 at page 886) . In fact, Ext.A4, theAdvocate commissioner's report which was relied on by theErnakulam Sub Court in L.A.R. Nos.432/88 & 463/88 was verymuch relied on by the claimant before the Reference Court. TheReference Court, however, did not become inclined to placereliance on Ext.A4 for the reason that the advocate commissionerwas not examined as a witness and also for the reason that thetest taping conducted by the advocate commissioner, whosubmitted Ext.A4, was not properly proved in these cases.Accordingly, the learned Sub Judge did not grant anyenhancement over the value awarded by the LAO in respect ofthe rubber trees. It is being aggrieved by the judgment of theReference Court, that the claimant is in appeal before this court. 2. We have heard the submissions of Sri.Joseph Markose,learned senior counsel for the appellant/claimant and Sri.BasantBalaji, learned senior Government Pleader. Sri.Joseph Markose L.A.A.No.451/2004 & con.cases5drew our attention to the judgments in L.A.R. Nos. 209/95 and213/95 corresponding to L.A.A. Nos.463/88 & 432/88 of theErnakulam Sub Court. Sri.Joseph Markose submitted that thejudgment of this court in those two appeals are binding on boththe parties. The court below did follow the judgment of thiscourt when it came to re fixation of the market value of the landunder acquisition. Having followed the judgment of this court inthe matter of refixation of land value, the Reference Court oughtto have followed the same judgment for determining the value oftrees. Though there were seven separate LARs, the factremained is that the lands under acquisition in all these sevencases were part and parcel of one single rubber estate by namePeriyar Estate belonging to the appellant company. When aplantation with yielding rubber trees or any other fruit bearingtrees is valued by adopting the method of capitilisation ofincome, the land owners are not awarded any compensationtowards the value of the space upon which the trees arestanding. Relevant considerations for determining the value ofrubber estate can only be the prospective yield from the treesand the proper multiplier to be adopted. In the instant case, the L.A.A.No.451/2004 & con.cases6Ernakulam Sub Court and this court has adopted multiplier of 16in modification of multiplier of 20 adopted by the LandAcquisition Officer and found that the value of each rubber treesof bud variety, which existed on the properties covered by L.A.R.Nos. 432/88 & 463/88, is Rs.1802/-. That being so, there isevery justification for valuing all the rubber trees of bud variety,which were standing on the properties under acquisition in theseappeals, also at Rs.1802/-. The learned counsel would agreethat there may be some justification for making some slightreduction in the matter of trees of clonnel variety. 3. All the submissions of the learned senior counsel Sri.Joseph Markose were very forcefully resisted by Sri.BasantBalaji, who drew our attention to the observations of the learnedSub Judge in paragraphs 30, 31, 33 and 34 of the impugnedjudgment. The learned Government Pleader submitted that thereasoning of the learned Sub Judge is quite sound and there is nowarrant for interference at all. 4. Having anxiously considered the rival submissionsaddressed at the Bar and having carefully gone through theimpugned judgment, the judgment of the Reference Court which L.A.A.No.451/2004 & con.cases7was subject matter of L.A.A.Nos.213/95 & 209/95, we are ofthe view that there is considerable merit in the submissions ofthe learned senior counsel for the appellant that most of therubber trees, which were standing on the properties underacquisition in all these appeals, ought to have been given valueat the rate of Rs.1802/- per tree. After all, all these trees werestanding on parts of one and the same rubber estate by namePeriyar Estate and most of the trees were of bud variety. Weare, therefore, of the view that all the rubber trees, which wereof bud variety, are liable to be awarded value at the rate ofRs.1802/- per tree. But, when it comes to L.A.R. No.257/99corresponding to L.A.A. No. 488/2004, there is justification for aslightly different treatment. The trees standing on the propertyunder acquisition in that case, were of clonnel variety. We are ofthe view that value of the rubber trees standing on theproperties under acquisition in that case could not have beenmore than Rs.1,200/- per tree. We notice that L.A.R. No.258/99corresponding to L.A.A. 489/2004 trees were of bud and clonnelvarieties. According to us, the average value of trees standingon the property under acquisition in that case can be fixed at L.A.A.No.451/2004 & con.cases8Rs.1300/- per tree. The result of the above discussion is thatthe appeals will stand allowed to the following extent; 5. In L.A.A. No. 451/2004 the appellant/claimant will beentitled for enhanced compensation towards value of rubber treesat the rate of Rs.1546/- per tree for 145 trees. We, thereforeaward a total amount of Rs.2,24,170/- as enhancedcompensation in the above appeal. Similarly the appellant inLAA. No. 452 of 2004 will be entitled for enhanced compensationtowards value of rubber trees at the rate of Rs.1494/- per treefor 791 trees. The amount will come to Rs.11,81,754/- and weaward that amount as enhanced compensation in that appeal.The appellant in LAA. 453 of 2004 will also thus become entitledfor enhanced compensation towards all rubber trees at the rate ofRs.1341/- per tree. For 805 trees, the total amount will come toRs.10,79,505/- and we award that amount to the appellant inthat case. The appellant in LAA. No. 488 of 2004 will similarlybecome entitled for enhanced compensation at the rate ofRs.861/- per tree. For 435 trees, the total amount comes toRs.3,74,535/- and we award that amount to the appellant in thatcase. Similarly, the appellant in LAA. No. 489 of 2004 will L.A.A.No.451/2004 & con.cases9become entitled for enhanced value of rubber trees at the rate ofRs.970/- per tree. For 290 trees, the total amount comes toRs.2,81,300/- and we award that amount to that appellant. The appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above, butwithout any order as to costs. It is clarified that on the totalenhanced compensation to which the appellants become eligible,they will be eligible for statutory solatium under Section 23(2) ofthe Act. Solatium will be calculated on the total enhancedcompensation to which the appellants become eligible by virtue ofthe re-fixation of value of rubber trees made under this judgmentand also by the re-fixation of the value of land made under thejudgment of the reference court. Apart from that, the totalenhanced compensation will carry interest under Section 28 ofthe Land Acquisition Act, i.e., at 9% per annum during the firstyear and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till date ofpayment. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGEdpk/ksv