LexKOYAPPATHODI M. AYISHA UMMA versus STATE OF KERALA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F KOYAPPATHODI M. AYISHA UMMA v. STATE OF KERALA AUGUST 13, 1991 [N.M. KASLIWAL AND K. RAMASWAMY, .rJ.] Kera/a Land Acquisition Act, 1961-Section 11-A .. ard-Land with fruit bearing trees-Valuation-Methods-Pendency of appeal whether attracts application of Section 30(2) read with Se< tion 23(2), Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-0rder 41, Rule 27-Remand- Whether to be made to adduce fresh evidence when oppcrtunity not utilised. The notification under section 3 of the Kerala Land <\cquisition Act, 1961 (Act 21of1962) was published in the Gazette on F"brnary 28, 1967 acquiring six acres of land to construct staff quarters •>f P & T of Govt. oflndia. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation @ Rs.2.30 per cent and also the value of the trees by capitalisation method in a sum of Rs.2,69,42I.SS p. towards the land improvement to iether with IS per cent solatium and 4 per cent interest. On reference, the Civil Court enhanced the mark• 't value at Rs.SOO per cent, i.e., in total Rs.3,00,000 towards land value and con- firmed the award of the L"nd Acquisition Officer of 2,6'1,421.SS p. towards land improvement making in all S,69,421.SS p. with solatium at IS per cent and interest at 4 per cent from the date of disp< ~session. The appeal by the State was allowed by the High Court. Calling in question the reversing decree of the High Court, this G appeal has been liled by the claimant contending that th ere was an intensive cultivation in the acquired land not only of the frnit bearing trees therein but also using the vacant space for other short term crops .., •. to establish, which the appellant sought remand to the Ci1'il Court to adduce additional evidence under Order 4I of Rule 27 'tc., which request the High Court had wrongly rejected; that the appellant was H entitled to 30 per cent solatinm under section 23(2) of the Land <\cquisition 548 AY!SHA UMMA v. STATE OF KERALA 549 Act, 1894 as amended under the Land Acquisition Amendment Act 68 of 1984; and that the land and the trees together constitute the value of the acquired lands and so were separately valued which would reflect the correct market value, which method the Civil .Court had correctly adopted. A The State contended that the lands and the trees cannot be valued B separately; and that the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and 1984 Amend- ment Act have no application since acquisition proceedings were admit- tedly taken under the Kerala Land Acquisition Act. On the question, what is the proper method of valuation of the land, this Court, allowing the claimant's appeal, HELD: I. The methods of valuation to be adopted in ascertaining the market value of the land as on the date of the notification are: (i) opinion of experts, (ii) the price paid within a reasonable time in bona c jtde transaction of the purchase or sale of the lands acquired or the lands adjacent to the lands acquired and possessing similar advantages, D and (iii) a number of years purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the lands acquired. These methods, however, do not preclude the court from taking any other special circumstances obtained in an appropriate case into consideration. As the object being always to arrive as near as possible in an estimate of the market value in arriving at a reasonable correct market value, it may be necessary to E take even two or all those matters into account inasmuch as the exact valuation is not always possible as no two lands may be the same either in respect of the situation or the extent or the potentiality nor is it possible in all cases to have reliable material from which that valuation can be accurately determined. [553B-D] · 2. In evaluating the market value of the acquired property, namely, land and the building or the lands with fruit bearing trees standing thereon, value of both would not constitute one unit; but sepa- rate units; it would be open to the Land Acquisition Officer or the court either to assess the lands with all its advantages as potential value and F fix the market value thereof or where there is reliable and acceptable G ~"- evidence available on record of the annual inco~e of the fruit bearing trees the annual net income multiplied by appropriate capitalisation of 15 years would be the proper and fair method to determine the market value but not both. [555A-C] State of Kera/a v. P. P. Hassan Ko
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.