Against the award made by the High Court, this appeal has been preferred by the State of Kerala with certificate under Art.
332.50.
588 of Appeal from the iudgment and decree dated June 21, 196Z of the kerala High Court in APPeal Suit No.
The respondent in this appeal held in that land the rights of a Kanamdar under a deed dated March 27, 1954.
In his view, each unit had to be valued as a companyposite property.
298/2 admeasuring 3911 sq.
R. L. Iyengar and M, R. K. Pillai, for the appellant.
Notification under S. 6 of the Act was issued on December 12, 1954, and possession of the land was taken soon thereafter.
together with a building standing thereon used for business purposes.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The buildings companystructed on the land belonged to the respondent and were let out to tenants at an aggregate monthly rent of Rs.
The Land Acquisition Officer determined the companypensation payable to the persons interested at the rate of Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. On December 8, 1954, the Government of Madras issued a numberification under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act numberifying for acquisition for a public purpose, viz.
10,000/ per acre for the land, and for the houses standing thereon at their break up value?.
V. Gupte, Vishnu B. Saharya, Yougindra Khushalani, Sardar Bahadur Saharva and T. L. Viswanatha Iyer, for the respon.dent.
298/2 in Jenmi right.
widening the Madras Calicut Road at Palyam, seven units of land with buildings.
One of the units was T.S. No.
The Receiver of Patinhare Kovilakam Estate held T.S. No.
Against the award of the Subordinate Judge, the State of, Kerala appealed to the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam.
602 of 1958.
In a reference at the instance of the respondent under, S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in which the Receiver of, Patinhare Kovilakam Estate did number join the Subordinate Judge, Kozhikode, was of the view that the method adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer for dete companypensation by separately valuing the lands as garden lands and the break up value of the houses was manifestly unjust and improper.
The High Court determined companypensation by multiplying the net rent 33 1/3 times that being in their view the true, multiple derived from the return based on the current retum from gilt edged securities.
