Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
THE SECRETARY, KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, GADAG & ORS
DATE OF JUDGMENT07/03/1995
BENCH:
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
BENCH:
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
RAMASWAMY, K.
CITATION:
1995 SCC Supl. (2) 1 JT 1995 (3) 184
1995 SCALE (2)146
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
HANSARIA, J.:
1. Leave granted in both the petitions.
2. A plot of land measuring two acres was acquired by
Notification dated 14.4.1988 for establishment of sub-
station by the Karnataka Electricity Board, the appellant
herein. The market value of the land was fixed by the Land
Acquisition Officer at Rs. 13,000/- per acre by an award
made on 21.8.1989. On reference being made, the Civil Judge,
however, enhanced the compensation to Rs. 10,000/- per gunta
i.e. Rs. 4 lacs per acre by an order dated 16.12.1989. On
appeal being preferred before the High Court, the
enhancement was sustained but with the direction to deduct
65% towards development and other charges. The Electricity
Board has preferred this appeal by special leave. The land
owner has also approached this Court seeking further
enhancement.
3. A perusal of the order of Reference Court shows that
the land owner had himself led evidence to show yield, which
was found to be around Rs. 11,000/- per acre per year. This
was the gross income; the net annual income assessed being
Rs. 5,695/-, after deducting 50 % towards cost of
cultivation. The market value as per the capitalisation
method was, therefore, fixed at Rs.28,470/- per acre by
deducting 50 % of the average annual yield, assuming that
the claimant had exaggerated the average annual yield in his
evidence; he being an interested witness.
4. The Reference Court, instead of fixing the market value
at Rs.28,470/- per acre determined as per the capitalisation
method, fixed the same at Rs.4 lacs on the strength of a
solitary sale deed which related to small piece of land
measuring 74 feet x 17 feet, which was sold for Rs. 10,000/-
at the relevant point of time.
5. Learned counsel for the Board has contended that the
Reference Court, as well as the High Court, erred in law in
placing reliance on a solitary sale transaction and that too
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
relatable to a very small piece of land in fixing the market
value at Rs. 4 lacs. The learned counsel for the claimant,
however, draws our attention to the evidence of the approved
Land and Building valuer who was examined as P.W.3 and whose
evidence has been dealt in para 10 of the Civil Judge’s
order. We have been taken through this part of the Civil
Judge’s order wherein mention has been made, inter alia,
about the aforesaid plot of land being within the Gadag-
Betigeri Municipal limit, which is not so, as the acquired
land is situated beyond the limit of the municipality. From
the judgment of the High Court, it further appears that the
plot of land whose sale was taken into consideration had
abutted two main roads; and could not have, therefore, been
taken as the basis for determining the market value of the
acquired land. The High Court itself has, therefore, stated
that the sale deed could not have been made as the basis for
determining the market value. Being of this view, what the
High Court did was to make a deduction of 65% towards
development and other charges.
6. According to us, however, if the sale deed in question
could not have formed the basis of determining the, market
value of the acquired land, the proper course open for the
courts below was to fix the valuation as per the
capitalisation method, as was sought to be pressed into
service by the claimant himself which is apparent
186
from the fact that to bring on record the yield he examined
himself The courts below committed manifest error of law in
having fixed the market value by taking into consideration a
transaction wherein the land was valued on square foot
basis. It has been noticed by this Court. in its several
decisions that recourse to determination of market value on
square foot basis is taken at times to show the value rather
less, whereas ultimately it works out to be much more.
7. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Reference
Court as modified by the High Court; instead, fix the market
value at Rs.28,470/- per acre. The claimant would be
entitled to solarium @ 30 % and an amount calculated @12%
per annum on the market value so fixed from 14.8.1988 till
21.8-1989. This apart, the claimant would be paid interest
@9% for a period of one year from the date of taking
possession of the land and thereafter @ 15% per annum till
the date of payment of the enhanced compensation, less the
amount already paid.
8. In the result, the appeal No. 3247/95 arising out of
SLP(C) No.2246/94 is allowed as aforesaid. The appeal
No.3248/ 95 arising out of SLP(C) 21959/94 stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.
188