IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 22 of 2002(A)
1. MOORKALAYIL BABY, S/O.VARKEY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LAND ACQUISITION),
For Petitioner :SRI.PHILIP MATHEW
For Respondent :SRI.RAJAN JOSEPH, ADDL.A.G.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :17/08/2009
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
L.A.A. No. 22 of 2002
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this the 17th day of August, 2009
JUDGMENT
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J.
Even though several grounds have been raised, Sri.Philip Mathew,
learned counsel for the appellant relying on the judgment of a Division
Bench of this Court in L.A.A.No.247 of 2002 argued that the court below
went wrong in adopting multiplier of 10. According to him, the proper
multiplier to be adopted for determining the value of the property under
acquisition is 12.
2. Smt.P.N.Sumangala, learned Government Pleader resisted the
above submission. According to her, though this Court has taken such a
view in a case, the said view runs contrary to the view of the Supreme
Court.
3. We have considered the rival contentions. We are of the view that
there is justification, in the facts and circumstances of this case, in awarding
some more compensation for the lands under acquisition. A Bench of this
Court has held that the correct multiplier to be adopted in a given case will
depend on the nature of the land, nature of the plants, etc. We find that the
L.A.A.No 22/02 2
property was in Waynad District, which is known for one of the coffee
plantation in the whole of Asia. There is justification for adopting a higher
multiplier i.e., multiplier between 11 and 12.
4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are
of the view that the appellant is entitled to further amount of Rs.15,000/-
over and above the amounts awarded by the reference court. We award
Rs.15,000/- over and above the award of the reference court.
The appeal stands allowed, but in the circumstances no order as to
costs. It is needless to mention that the appellant will be entitled to all
statutory benefits on the additional amount to which he becomes eligible on
account of our re-fixation under this judgment.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE.
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
mn.
L.A.A.No 22/02 3
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE &
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
L.A.A. No. 22 of 2002
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
JUDGMENT
17th day of August, 2009