1. Land acquisition compensation — determination of agricultural yield and market value under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1995 Supreme(SC) 1261
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.Ramaswamy : K.S.Paripoornan
Collector, Land Acquisition
Versus
Ganaram Dhoba
Case No. : .
Date of Decision : 12/4/95
Advocates Appeared: Gupta Anil Kumar : Mishra P.N. : Patel Kishore Kumar
Important Points
When determining compensation for agricultural land based on yield, the proper multiplier to be applied is 10. Outdated statistics cannot be used to determine yield if the State fails to provide relevant statistics for the date of the acquisition notification.
Subject
Land Law - Land Acquisition
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4(1) and Section 11 - Determination of compensation - Agricultural land - Yield and Multiplier - State contended that yield should be based on statistics from 1957 - Held, statistics from 1957 cannot be applied to a notification issued in 1983 as improvements in produce are expected over time, especially when the State failed to produce relevant statistics for the date of notification - When compensation is determined on the basis of yield of agricultural lands, a multiplier of 10 is the proper multiplier to be applied - Application of a multiplier of 16 is illegal and based on a wrong principle of law. (Para 4)
(B) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (as amended by Act 68 of 1984) - Claimants entitled to enhanced solatium, interest, and 12% additional amount per annum on enhanced compensation. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
Land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with notification published in 1983. The Reference court and High Court determined compensation based on a yield of 22 bags per acre, deducting 50% for cultivation expenses at a price of Rs. 130 per bag. The High Court upheld the use of a multiplier of 16 to determine the market value. The State challenged this, arguing that yield statistics from 1957, which showed a yield of 10 bags per acre, should be used instead.
Findings of Court:
The court found that statistics from 1957 were outdated and irrelevant for a 1983 notification. However, it held that the multiplier of 16 used by the lower courts was legally incorrect. The annual yield of Rs. 1,430 should be multiplied by 10, resulting in a market value of Rs. 14,300 per acre.
Issues: Whether outdated agricultural statistics from 1957 could be used to determine yield for a 1983 acquisition and whether a multiplier of 16 was appropriate for calculating compensation based on agricultural yield.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that current statistics must be used for yield determination and that the settled legal principle for agricultural land compensation based on yield requires the application of a multiplier of 10, not 16.
Result: Appeal allowed.
(B) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (as amended by Act 68 of 1984) - Claimants entitled to enhanced solatium, interest, and 12% additional amount per annum on enhanced compensation. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
Land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with notification published in 1983. The Reference court and High Court determined compensation based on a yield of 22 bags per acre, deducting 50% for cultivation expenses at a price of Rs. 130 per bag. The High Court upheld the use of a multiplier of 16 to determine the market value. The State challenged this, arguing that yield statistics from 1957, which showed a yield of 10 bags per acre, should be used instead.
Findings of Court:
The court found that statistics from 1957 were outdated and irrelevant for a 1983 notification. However, it held that the multiplier of 16 used by the lower courts was legally incorrect. The annual yield of Rs. 1,430 should be multiplied by 10, resulting in a market value of Rs. 14,300 per acre.
Issues: Whether outdated agricultural statistics from 1957 could be used to determine yield for a 1983 acquisition and whether a multiplier of 16 was appropriate for calculating compensation based on agricultural yield.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that current statistics must be used for yield determination and that the settled legal principle for agricultural land compensation based on yield requires the application of a multiplier of 10, not 16.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
ANIL GUPTA, KISHORE PATEL, P.N.MISHRA
ANIL GUPTA, KISHORE PATEL, P.N.MISHRA
Table of Contents
2. State contended that agricultural yield should be based on historical statistics rather than the higher yield accepted by the lower courts. (Para 4 )
3. Outdated statistics are insufficient without current data; the multiplier for agricultural yield must be ten. (Para 4 )
4. A multiplier of ten is the proper legal standard for determining market value when land is assessed on agricultural yield. (Para 4 )
5. Appeal allowed — compensation recalculated using a multiplier of ten, including statutory solatium, interest, and additional amounts. (Para 5 , 6 )
6. How should agricultural yield statistics be treated when there is a significant time gap between available data and the notification date?
Statistics from a distant past cannot be used to determine current yield if the State fails to produce relevant statistics as of the notification date, as improvements in produce are expected over time. (Para 4 )
7. What is the correct multiplier for determining the market value of agricultural land based on its annual yield?
The settled law is that a multiplier of ten should be applied to the annual yield to determine the market value of agricultural lands. (Para 4 , 5 )
8. What additional benefits are claimants entitled to upon the enhancement of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act?
Claimants are entitled to enhanced solatium, interest, and an additional amount of 12% per annum on the enhanced compensation as per the Act amended by Act 68 of 1984. (Para 5 )
(1) LEAVE granted.
(2) THIS appeal by special leave arises from the judgment dated 16/8/1991 of the division bench of the orissa High court made in FA No. 135 of 1991. The High court accepted the oral evidence that the yield from the land was 22 bags per acre. It also accepted the deduction of 50% of the value of the crop for cultivation expenses. It also accepted the prevailing price as on the relevant date as Rs. 130.00 per bag; 27.20 acres for single crop wet lands and 4 acres for double crop wet lands. Therefore, it accepted the findings of the Reference court and modified the same to the extent of single crop wet lands. Thus this appeal by special leave.
(3) NOTIFICATION under Section 4(1 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") was published on 19-8-1983. The award under Section II was made on 25/4/1987. The Reference court awarded compensation on 8/2/1991. On appeal, by judgment and decree dated 16/8/1991, the High court confirmed the award with the above modification.
(4) IT is contended for the State that statistics for the year 1957 show that the yield in that area was about 10 bags and that, therefore, the High court was not right in confirming the compensation at 22 bags per acre. It is seen that from the year 1957 till 1987 considerable improvement must obviously have been made. Under those circumstances, no attempt has been made by the State to produce the relevant statistics of the produce as on the date of the notification, viz., 19-8-1983. Therefore, we cannot accept the contention of the State that the produce from the lands would be as per the statistics prevailing in 1957. Even accepting the valuation given by the Reference court as well as the High court, it is settled law that multiplier of 10 would be the proper multiplier to determine the compensation when the land is a assessed on the basis of the yield of agricultural lands. The Reference court applied multiplier of 16 and the High court upheld it. This obviously is illegal and application of wrong principle of law.
(5) THE annual yield at Rs. 1,430.00 should be multiplied by 10 and the market value should be determined at Rs. 14,300.00 per acre. The compensation should accordingly be determined. The claimants would also be entitled to b enhanced solatium and interest and also 12% additional amount per annum on enhanced compensation under the Act as amended by Act 68 of 1984.
(6) THE appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.
