IMPORTANT POINTS
Rubber tree is grown mainly for extraction of latex and the timber of the rubber tree is sold only after the entire period of extraction is over and we are unable to think that a rubber tree would be cut and removed by a farmer while latex is being extracted. Therefore, the compensation for the timber value and the latex value are to be calculated separately for fixing the compensation from the farmers’ point of view and not from the view of the Requisitioning authority or the Acquisition authority, and of course in accordance with law.

JUDGMENT :

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

1. This writ appeal is filed by the 4th respondent in W.P. (C) No. 10869 of 2019 challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 11.03.2020, whereby the writ petition was allowed and held as follows at paragraphs 11 to 13:

“11. The term compensation has to be given normal meaning. One would be entitled to timber value as well as produce value as compensation in normal circumstances. In the contract if nothing indicates as to the contrary, such a compensation cannot be denied to the owner of the land. In regard to rubber trees after the age of yield is over, one would get timber value.

12. On interpretation of the agreement, this Court find as per the Government Order, that the petitioners are entitled for both the timber value as well as the annual produce value of the timber, on a conjoined reading of Clause 7.7 and Clause 2C in the Annexure II. In such circumstances, the writ petition has to be allowed.

13. The petitioners should be given the timber value as originally calculated. The annual produce value of the trees will have to be re-worked after obtaining necessary inputs from the competent authority. It shall be done within a period of two months. The compensation amount shall be re-worked and paid within a further period of two months. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside.

Therefore, this writ petition is allowed and disposed as above. No costs.”

2. The subject issue relates to the acquisition of land belonging to respondents 1 to 3/writ petitioners by the State Government on the requisition made by the appellant Corporation, in terms of ExtP12 Government Order dated 05-11-2004.

3. Brief material facts for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:

The property belonging to the writ petitioners having a total extent of 46.5944 hectares (115.13 acres) under different title deeds were acquired by the State of Kerala for establishing Kuttiyadi Coconut Industrial Park proposed by the appellant. The acquisition was under a negotiated purchase scheme as agreed by the parties and the land value was fixed at Rs. 10,750/- per cent and the value of improvements were to be calculated on the basis of G.O. (Rt.) No. 331/2004/RD dated 05.11.2004 produced as Ext.P12 in the writ petition. Immediately, 80% of the compensation amounting to Rs. 9,90,15,896/- was paid to the writ petitioners on 15.12.2012 and accordingly, the possession of the property was taken. Admittedly, an award dated 06.09.2013 was passed and on the basis of the same, the balance amount that was to be paid to the writ petitioners with interest was Rs. 4,86,01,035/-.

4. Matters being so, writ petitioners filed W.P. (C) No. 32066 of 2013 before this Court contending that no award was passed by the authorities and sought to direct the appellant and the State to pass an award under Section 11(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, apart from the other reliefs sought for. The writ petition was allowed by the learned single Judge. Being aggrieved, the State of Kerala and the appellant filed separate writ appeals, W.A. Nos. 977 of 2016 and 1327 of 2016. According to the appellant, as per judgment dated 16.12.2016, writ appeals were allowed with a finding that there is an agreement between the parties by which the land value was fixed at Rs. 10750/- per cent and directed to calculate the value of improvements on the basis of Ext.P12 Government Order dated 05.11.2004. The said common judgment is produced as Ext.P11 in the writ petition.

5. Aggrieved, the writ petitioners filed Special Leave Petitions, SLP Nos. 12459-12960 of 2017, before the Apex Court. However, the same were withdrawn. Thereafter, the writ petitioners filed R.P. Nos. 574 of 2017 and 580 of 2017 before the Division Bench of this Court to review Ext.P11 judgment; but the same were dismissed on 05.01.2018. Being aggrieved, the writ petitioners filed SLP No. 13914 of 2