SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 2163

1997(1) Supreme 308
Supreme Court of India
K. Ramaswamy and G.T. Nanavati, JJ.
The State of Gujarat & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Rama Rana & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 16945-64 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 13322-41 of 1996)
Decided on 13-12-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Yashank Adhyaru, Ms. S. Hazarika, Mrs. H. Wahi, Advocates.
For the Respondents : P.S. Rao, Ms. Deepa and P.H. Parekh, Advocates.

Important Point
In determination of compensation of land on yield basis, 50% of the value of the crop realised would go towards cultivation expenses and appropriate multiplier should be of 10 years.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 23-Determination of compensation on basis of yield-50% of the value of the crop realised would go towards cultivation expenses-Appropriate multiplier should be of 10 years-Value of crop as determined by reference court was at Rs. 2050/- as average annual income-Claimants are entitled to Rs. 20,500 per acre with additional benefits under amended Act 68 of 1984. (Paras 4 & 5)

       

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

  • The case involves the determination of compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with specific reference to Section 23 regarding compensation based on yield and crop value [judgement_subject][judgement_act_referred].

  • The court emphasized that, in the absence of sale deeds, the value of the crop realized can be used as a method for estimating land value, provided the evidence is scrutinized carefully (!) .

  • The court noted that 50% of the crop's value should be allocated towards cultivation expenses when calculating compensation [judgement_subject].

  • The appropriate multiplier for calculating compensation was determined to be 10 years, based on relevant legal principles, and not 20 years as previously considered (!) .

  • The court upheld the value of the crop at Rs. 2,050 per annum as determined by the reference court, which was based on oral evidence, particularly that of the village Sarpanch (!) (!) .

  • The compensation per acre was calculated as Rs. 20,500 after applying the appropriate deduction of 50% for cultivation expenses and the multiplier of 10 years (!) .

  • Additional benefits, including solatium at 30%, and interest on the compensation from the date of possession, were awarded, with interest rates varying from 9% for the first year to 15% thereafter (!) .

  • The appeals against the lower court decisions were allowed, resulting in the enhancement of compensation, and the case was remitted with no costs awarded (!) .

  • The court highlighted the importance of evaluating oral evidence critically and applying the principles of fairness and objectivity in determining fair compensation (!) .

These points summarize the key legal principles and outcomes related to land acquisition compensation as discussed in the document.


Order

Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. We have heard learned counsel on both sides. These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment of the Gujarat High Court, made on September 22, 1995 in F.A. Nos. 2532-2549/95.

3. A total extent of 68 hectares 62.5 sq. mts. of land was acquired for irrigation scheme by publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) (for short, the Act) on August 25, 1977. The Land Acquisition Officer in his award dated March 27, 1978 awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 2023.50 per acre for the dry crop lands, Rs. 3035.25 for the irrigated lands, Rs. 40.47 for the waste lands. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the Asstt. District Judge by his award and decree dated September 13, 1993 enhanced the compensation to Rs. 325/- per acre to all the lands irrespective of the classification. On appeal, the High Court in the impugned judgment confirmed the same. Thus these appeals by special leave.

4. The reference Court proceeded on the premise that there are no sale deeds exhibited for determination of the compensation. Therefore, the oral evidence was relied upon to determine the compensation, on the basis of the yield. 8 witnesses came to be examined in proof of the yield of the acquired lands. One of the witnesses was the Sarpanch of the village and his evidence was accepted. The reference Court also found that the witnesses exaggerated the yield. On that basis, it determined the market value after deducting 1/3 towards prices at Rs. 325/- per acre. It would be common knowledge that expenditure would be involved in raising and harvesting the crops and that, therefore, on an average 50% of the value of the crop realised would go towards cultivation expenses. Therefore, deduction of 1/3rd was not correct in determining the compensation of the lands on the basis of yield.

5. It is undoubtedly true that one of the methods of determination of compensation, in the absence of best evidence, namely, sale deeds, is the realised value of he crop. Normally, they should have produced the statistics from the Agriculture Department as to the nature of the crops and the prices prevailing at that time. But unfortunately, neither claimants nor the Government took any steps to adduce that best evidence. It is a fact that the Government have failed to adduce any evidence in that behalf. However, we cannot reject the oral evidence of the witnesses on that ground alone. The Court has statutory duty to the society to subject the oral evidence to great scrutiny, applying the test of normal prudent man, i.e., whether he would be willing to purchase the land at the rates proposed by the Court. On the touch stone of this, the Court should evaluate the evidence objectively and dispassionately and reach a finding on compensation. The reference Court has accepted the evidence of the Sarpanch to be the reliable person. Therefore, we proceed on that premise. The appropriate multiplier should be of 20 years as settled by several judgments of this Court. Necessarily, 50% of the net value towards cultivation expenses requires to be deducted. The award of the reference Court as confirmed by the High Court stands set aside and the value of the crop as determined by the reference Court at Rs. 2,050/- as average annual income stands upheld. Multiplier of 10 years should be applied and deduction of 50% towards cultivation expenses should be made. After giving deduction, the balance will be the net value of the land. On that basis, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 20,500/- per acre with solatium @ 30% on enhanced compensation and interest on enhanced compensation @ 0.9% per annum for one year from the date of taking possession and 15% per annum till date of deposit into the court under the Act as amended by Act 68 of 1984, namely 30% solatium on the enhanced compensation, interest on the enhanced compensation from the date of taking possession for one year at 9% and thereafter at 15% till



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top