Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
RAMA RANA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/12/1996
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Delay condoned. Leave granted.
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.
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
lave.
The reference Curt 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.
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 the
crop. Normally, they should have produced the statistics
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
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 10 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 the 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 date of deposit.
The appeals are accordingly allowed. No costs.