~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Appellant is the claimant in Land Acquisition Reference No.79/1989 of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Sulthan Bathery, whose land having an extent of 0.9100 hectares in Re-Survey No.169/6 in Thariode Village, Vythiri Taluk was acquired for the purpose of Kuttiyadi Augmentation Scheme through notification dated 21.06.1983. The award was passed on 20.12.1985 by fixing a total compensation of ₹2,72,380.57. 2. The court below made an enhancement of ₹69,105/- in the compensation. It seems that the reference was closed on account of non prosecution on 13.02.1991 and later, the case was restored on 05.04.2006. The court below has excluded the period between 13.02.1991 and 05.04.2006 in computing the period for levying interest.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sri.G.G.Manoj and the learned Government Pleader Sri.Egy N. Elias. Out of 0.9100 hectares of land of the appellant acquired in this case, an extent of 0.6794 hectares were planted with rubber trees, coffee, pepper wines, and other fruit bearing trees. For the remaining land, i.e., 0.2306 hectares, the court below adopted the very same market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer at ₹30,800/- per hectare. The land value adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer and accepted by the court below was at the rate of ₹124.65 per cent. The said valuation was adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer on the basis of document No.3416/81 of the Vythiri Sub Registry, which was marked as Ext.R4. It has to be noted that the notification was dated 21.06.1983.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the appellant had produced Ext.A3 dated 15.11.1982 and Ext.A4 dated 06.11.1982. Exts.A3 and A4 are two assignment deeds by which 30 cents of property each were sold. The total consideration in Ext.A3 was ₹12,600/- and that in Ext.A4 is ₹12,000/-. Both the said documents show that the land value relating to the said land was coming around ₹400/- per cent. The said documents were produced by the appellant before the Tahsildar during valuation. It seems that the Tahsildar has refused to rely on Ext.A3 by simply mentioning a reason that the land value shown in it is much more higher than the land value prevalent at that locality. No reasons have been mentioned for rejecting the said documents.
5. Regarding the capitalisation method adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer and accepted by the court below with modifications, this court is satisfied that the same does not require any interference at all. The trees were properly valued and the compensation was arrived at. At the same time, regarding the land of 0.2306 hectares, the land value adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer and accepted by the court below seems to be too low. It is true that any Commission was not taken out for having a proper comparison of the lands covered by Ext.A3 and Ext.A4 with the land acquired. Those documents of the year 1982 reveal that the land value is at ₹400/- per cent. Considering the evidence adduced by the appellant, this Court is of the view that in the absence of any comparison regarding the land covered by Ext.A3 and Ext.A4 with the land in question, the land value per cent can be fixed at ₹300/-. Therefore, the impugned judgment requires modification to that effect. The appellant is entitled to get an amount of ₹17,094/- towards the land value for the 0.2306 hectares of land acquired. An amount of ₹7,102.48 only was granted. The appellant is entitled to get an amount of ₹9,992/- more as additional compensation in respect of the said land acquired.
In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part and an additional compensation of ₹9,992/- more is granted to the appellant with all the statutory benefits. As ordered by the court below, the period between 13.02.1991 and 05.04.2006 and a further period of 30 days more being the delay that had occasioned in filing this appeal, shall be excluded from the period for computing the interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act.
Sd/-
(B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE) aks/29/05 // True Copy // PA to Judge