The owner is entitled to the market value of the property, and the valuation of a quarry can be approved on a quantitative basis. The Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and Land Conservancy Act do not affect the principle of valuation or the question of payment of value to the quarry.

1. This appeal is filed by the State against the decision of the Sub-Court, Kottarakara enhancing by a sum of Rs.- 98,011.07 the compensation payable for the land acquired. The respondent has filed a cross-objection claiming a further "sum of Rs. 2,87,088/-. For the purpose of blasting and collecting rubbles for the Parappur Dam of Kallada Irrigation Project an extent of 8. 83 hectares of dry land in Sy. No. 1/8 of Edamon Village was acquired under the emergency provision of the Land Acquisition Act. The land is situate by the side of Trivandrum-Sbencottah Road a little away from Tenmala Junction where the road from Quilon joins. The respondent submitted a statement claiming land value at Rs. 80/-per cent, value of improvements of Rs. 28.536.66, value of granite Rs. 3,57,871/- and a sum .of Rs. 30,000/- towards injurious affection of the rest of the land belonging to the respondent. On the whole Rs. 5,90,950/- was claimed as compensation The Land Acquisition Officer after conducting an award enquiry assessed the land value at Rs 27.50 per Are. That worked out at Rs. 24 282 50 as land value. Rs. 15,301/- was assessed as value of improvements. Adding solatium at 15% and interest from the date of dispossession i e. 30-1-1971 to the date of the award a sum of Rs.47,616.23 was awarded as compensation. Dissatisfied with this award the claimant applied for reference and the Sub-Court, Kottarakkara enquired into the reference.

2. The main objection taken before the lower court to the award was that the land value awarded is too low compared to the market value of the land, that the value awarded for the timber is too low and that the granite rock available in the land has got a saleable value which should have been valued separately and paid for. The lower court issued a Commission to find out the cubic content of the rock in the acquired land. An Advocate Commissioner, A.W 4 visited the property and after necessary measurements estimated the cubic content of the rock as 7,12,500 Cubic Metres. The lower court was of the view that the value of the granite rock should be paid for and granite rock area should not be valued on a centage basis like any other land. So holding, the value was fixed taking into account the amount claimed by the respondent for the quantity that could, as per the respondent's statement, be extracted That is to say, the respondent's witness had stated in his deposition that 25,00,000 cubic metres of rubble could be extracted from the acquired land and for that they had claimed a value of Rs. 3,57,871/-. The quantity estimated by the Commissioner is only 7,12,500 cubic metres This comes to only 57 of the estimate made by the claimant's

"200"

witness. So the lower court fixed the value of granite rock at 3,57,871 x 57 which works out ---------------

200

at Rs. 102.493/-. This works out at less than Re. 1/- per 100 C Ft. rubble. That was considered to be reasonable by the lower court and the same was awarded The area covered by the granite rock was 15.77 acres. The Land Acquisition Officer had awarded value for this on a centage basis at Rs. 27.50 per Are (11.235 percent). As the value for the granite rock was found payable on a quantitative basis, the lower court found that the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer for 15.77 acres amounting to Rs. 17,717.59 should be deducted. On deducting this the compensation for granite rock was fixed as Rs ,1,02,493/- Rs. 17,719.59 = Rs. 84,775.41. To this was added Rs.13,235.66 as enhanced compensation for the trees for the following reason. After acquisition the trees in the acquired land were sold in auction by the Kerala Irrigation Division Project Office on 13-2-1972. A sum of Rs. 30,500/-was realised. This was found to be a reasonable and fair price for the value of the trees in the acquired land. The claim of the respondent was only Rs. 28,536.66 for trees which is less than the amount realised at the auction. So the lower court found that the full amoun