The court upheld the use of the Yield Method for determining compensation under the Land Acquisition Act when credible evidence of comparable sales was lacking, affirming the market value of cultivated land based on agricultural yield.

JUDGMENT :

SANGEETA K. VISHEN, J.

1. Captioned appeals are directed against the judgment dated 17.01.2017 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge in Land Acquisition Reference case nos.49 to 74 of 2002 and other allied references (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned judgment”) whereby, group of land acquisition reference cases filed by the claimants, came to be partly allowed. Since the issues involved in the captioned group of appeals are common, all the matters, with the consent of the learned advocates, are heard analogously and being decided by this Common Oral Judgment.

2. Briefly stated are the facts:

2.1 Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1894”) was published in the Government Gazette on 12.06.1997 while, section 6 notification, was published on 30.10.1997. Followed, was the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer dated 24.09.1999 and the market value determined, was Rs.3.50/- per sq. mtr. for Jirayat Land and Rs.5.25/- per sq. mtr. for Bagayat Land.

2.2 The claimants, since were aggrieved, approached the Collector and the applications were registered as Land Acquisition Reference case nos.49 of 2002 to 74 of 2002 and other allied matters. All the reference cases were clubbed together, treating Land Acquisition Reference Case no.49 of 2002 as a lead reference. All the references were decided by the impugned judgment and as stated hereinabove, the learned Judge determined the additional compensation at Rs.40.25/- per sq. mtr. for Jirayat Land and Rs.54.43/- per sq. mtr. for Bagayat Land. The total compensation determined, was Rs.43.75/- per sq. mtr. for Jirayat Land and Rs.59.68/- per sq. mtr. for Bagayat Land. Hence, the captioned appeals.

3. While taking this Court to the impugned Judgment, Mr Shivam Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that heavy emphasis is laid on the evidence produced by the claimants and the evidence produced by the State Government has been discarded. It is submitted that Exhibit 27, was the oral evidence produced on behalf of the claimants of one Popatbhai Savjibhjai wherein, the stand taken, was that they grow three crops in a year, indicating the amount of Rs.18,000/- for the crop of cotton, Rs.8,000/- for the crop of sesame and Rs.13,000/- for the crop of cumin. The witness, in his deposition has indicated that they are earning a total of Rs.26,250/- annually; however, it is recorded in the judgment itself that there was no evidence by the claimants substantiating growing and selling of the crops in the open market. It is further submitted that only on the basis of oral evidence of the claimants, the learned Judge has concluded that 30 to 32 tonnes of the crops have been produced; without there being any concrete evidence substantiating the quantity of the crops to the extent of 30 to 35 tonnes.

3.1 It is submitted that in paragraph 12 of the impugned judgment, the learned Judge has recorded regarding the sale instances Exhibits 74 to 76. It is submitted that when there were comparable sale instances available, the learned Judge ought not to have adopted the Yield Method. Also there was sufficient evidence available on the record to suggest that the market value of the land was on a lower side. Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Shaji Kuriakose and Another vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and Others reported in (2001) 7 SCC 650 for the proposition that while fixing the market value of the acquired land, comparable sales method of valuation