Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
THE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
VIRUPAX SHANKAR NADAGOUDA
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/08/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCALE (6)288
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation
Rs.3,500/- per acre for bagayat land and for the rest of the
land (jirayat dry) at Rs.960/- per acre. On reference, the
civil Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs.10,000/- per
acre for bagayat lands in which sugar cane was grown and for
the rest of the land he granted at Rs.4000/- per acre. The
High Court of Karnataka in the impugned judgment dated
September 9, 1988 confirmed the same. Thus these appeals by
special leave.
Two contentions have been raised by Shri Veerappa,
learned counsel for the appellant. The reference Court had
wrongly applied multiplier of 15 years in computing the
annual yield. This Court in Land Acquisition Officer vs. P.
Veerabhadrappa etc.etc. [(1984) 2 SCR 386] followed in other
judgments, had held that 10 years’ multiplier would be the
proper method of calculation of the compensation.
Accordingly 10 years’ multiplier should be applied in
determining compensation under Section 23 (1) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894. He also contended that separate
compensation granted the well in the sum Rs.13,000/- is not
valid in law. When the owner of the land is getting the
water drawn from the well to raise the crops and when he
claims compensation for the land on the basis of the yield,
he cannot separately claim compensation for the well.
Therefore, the reference Court obviously was in error in
granting compensation for the well at Rs.13,000/-. It is
accordingly set aside. 10 years multiplier should be applied
to the annual value of The yield for calculation of
compensation under Section 23 (1) of the Act. The reference
Court accordingly is directed to recalculate the
compensation under these principles and determine
compensation and pay over the respondents. If the amount has
already been recovered it would be open to the appellant to
recover the balance amount.
The appeals are accordingly allowed. No costs.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2