Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10
PETITIONER:
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SMT.SHANTI DEVI ETC. ETC
DATE OF JUDGMENT05/10/1983
BENCH:
VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)
BENCH:
VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)
SEN, A.P. (J)
CITATION:
1983 AIR 1190 1984 SCR (1) 217
1983 SCC (4) 542 1983 SCALE (2)1020
CITATOR INFO :
R 1984 SC 774 (16)
R 1986 SC1466 (11)
ACT:
Land Acquisition Act 1894 (I of 1894) Section 23-
Acquisition of land-Payment of compensation-Market value of
land fixed on basis of capitalisation principle-Multiplier
to be adopted in determination of compensation-Explained.
HEADNOTE:
Certain lands were notified for acquisition in the
years 1962 and 1963 under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894. On the question of payment of compensation the
Land Acquisition Officer, relying on an earlier award in
respect of similar lands acquired for the very same public
purpose adopted the same criteria and fixed the
compensation. He adopted the principal of capitalisation and
determined the compensation at Rs. 650 per kanal, as the
value of the best category of land and awarded compensation
equivalent to 13 times the net annual income.
On reference under Sec.18 the District Judge determined
the market value of the land adopting the capitalisation
principle, and determined the compensation by multiplying
the net annual income from each category of land by 20.
The Union of India and the State Government preferred
appeals and contended before the High Court that if the
principle adopted by the authorities below was used the
Government would suffer. These appeals were however
dismissed.
In the meanwhile the High Court in appeals arising out
of similar awards set aside the orders of the District
Judge and remanded the cases for fresh disposal for failure
to determine whether the exemplars on the record could serve
as a guide for determining the market value. After remand
the District Judge arrived at the very same valuation and
this was confirmed by the High Court.
In the appeals to this Court on the question as to what
should be the multiplier to be adopted in determining the
compensation payable in respect of land acquired in the year
1962-63 where the market value of the land is fixed on the
basis of the capitalisation principle.
Allowing the appeals in Part,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10
HELD: 1. The High Court and the District Court erred in
applying the twenty years purchase rule in the case of these
lands which were acquired
218
in the years 1962 and 1963. The proper principle was fifteen
years’ purchase rule.[228 H]
2. The relevant date for determining compensation of a
property acquired under the Act, is the date on which the
notification under s.4(1) is published. The capitalised
value of a property is the amount of money whose annual
interest at the highest prevailing rate of interest at any
given time will be its net annual income. The net annual
income from a land is arrived at by deducting from the gross
annual income all outgoings such as expenditure on
cultivation, land revenue etc. The net return from landed
property, reflects the prevalent rate of interest on safe
money investments. [225 G-H; 228 A]
3. (i) In India the multiplier which is adopted in
determining the compensation by the capitalisation method
has varied from time to time. The number of years purchase
has gradually decreased as the prevailing rate of interest
realisable from safe investments has gradually increased,
the higher the rate of interest, the lower the number of
years purchase. This method of valuation involves
capitalising the net income that the property can fairly be
expected to produce and the rate of capitalisation is the
percentage of return on investment that a willing buyer
would expect from the property during the relevant
period.[227 G-H; 228 A]
(ii) In the years 1962 and 1963 an investor in
agricultural land expected annual net return of at least 8%.
If the land yielded a net annual income of Rs. 8 a willing
buyer of land would have paid for it Rs.100 i.e. a little
more than 12 times the annual net income. The multiplier for
purposes of capitalisation would be about thirteen.[228 D-E]
(iii) In these cases there was no evidence about the
potential value of the lands.[228 F]
(iv)In the instant cases neither the Land Acquisition
Officer nor the High Court nor the District Court has
adopted the other well-known methods of valuation of land
namely, the price paid within a reasonable time in bona fide
transactions in respect of the land acquired or adjacent
lands which possess similar advantages, the price which a
willing buyer was prepared to pay to a willing seller of
such land or the opinion of valuers or experts. In the
absence of any reliable evidence to adopt the other methods
of valuation the very same capitalisation method was applied
and the Court adopted fifteen years’ purchase rule for
determining compensation has to be adopted.[225 C-E]
The Collector, Raigarh v. Dr. Harisingh Thakuar and An.
and Vice Versa, [1979] 1 S.C.C. 236; State of Kerala v.
Hassan Koya, [1968] 3 S.C.R. 459; The State of West Bengal
v. Shyamapada etc., A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1723; Oriental Gas Ltd.
JUDGMENT:
referred to.
219
&
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 51-72
of 1981.
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order
dated the 22nd September. 1980 of the High Court of Himachal
Pradesh at Simla in R.F.A. Nos. 262, 249, 251, 252, 261,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10
265, 266, 267, 280, 281, 292, 297, 299, 300, 307, 308, 352,
355, 356, 366, 370 and 220 of 1980 respectively.
M.M. Abdul Khader and Ms. A Subhashini with him for the
Appellants.
K.R. Nagargia, Mr. Naresh Kaushik and Krishna Prasad
for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
VENKATARAMIAH. J. What should be the true multiplier to
be adopted in determining the compensation payable in
respect of land acquired in or about the year 1962-63 where
the market value of the land is to be fixed on the basis of
the capitalisation principle, is the question which arises
for consideration in these appeals.
The construction of the Beas Project was commenced in
the year 1960 as a joint venture of the erstwhile State of
Punjab and the State of Rajasthan by mutual agreement
between the two States. All decisions on the policy and
administrative matters were taken by a Board known as the
Beas Control Board which was set up by the Central
Government in consultation with the two States on February
19, 1961. The Beas Project Board was presided over by the
Governor of the then State of Punjab and its members
included Ministers of the States of Punjab and Rajasthan and
senior officers of the Central Government and of the two
States. The decisions of the Beas Control Board used to be
implemented by the Punjab Government which was administering
and executing the works on the Project. The expenditure on
the Project was shared by the Rajasthan Government.
With the coming into force of the Punjab Reorganisation
Act, 1966 (Act 31 of 1966), the new State of Haryana and the
Union Territory of Chandigarh came into being, having been
formed out of the territory of the erstwhile State of
Punjab. A part of the Punjab
220
territory was also transferred to what was then the Union of
Territory of Himachal Pradesh. What remained with Punjab
became the new State of Punjab.
Sub-section (1) of section 80 of the Punjab
Reorganisation Act, 1966 provided that the construction
including the completion of any work already commenced of
the Beas Project should on and from November 1,1966 be
undertaken by the Central Government on behalf of the
successor States (as defined under that Act) and the State
of Rajasthan should provide the necessary funds to the
Central Government for the expenditure on the Project
including the expenses of the Beas Construction Board. For
the discharge of its functions, sub-section (1) and sub-
section (2) of section 80 of the Punjab Reorganistation Act
empowered the Central Government in consultation with the
Governments of the successor States and the State of
Rajasthan to constitute a Board to be called the Beas
Construction Board, Thus by the Punjab Reorganisation Act,
1966, the entire expenditure for the construction and
completion of the Beas Project was to be shared by the
successor States and the State of Rajasthan but the
responsibility of construction and completion of the Beas
Project was entrusted to the Central Government.
About 70,000 acres of land had to be acquired for the
Beas Dam Project which was located in the Kangra area of the
erstwhile State of Punjab which stood transferred to the
then Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh under the Punjab
Reorganisation Act, 1966. The necessary notifications under
section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had been
issued by the appropriate Government for that purpose. We
are concerned in these cases with lands which were notified
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10
for acquisition in the years 1962 and 1963 under section 4
(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The acquisition proceedings
in respect of the lands which stood transferred to the Union
Territory of the State of Himachal Pradesh, as mentioned
above, were to be completed by its officers. The land in
question are situated in Tikka Bhararian, Mauza Dhameta,
Tehril Dehra, District Kangra. Himachal Pradesh. The Land
Acquisition Officer issued notices under section 9 (3) of
the Land Acquisition Act to the interested persons inviting
their representations and objections with regard to the
determination and payment of the compensation. After
receiving the representations and objections, the Land
Acquisition Officer (Shri Didar Singh) passed a common award
on January 31, 1972 in respect of an extent of 1125.33 acres
of land in Tikka Bhararian
221
which had been notified on April 1,1963. It would appear
that another Land Acquisition Officer, Shri Jaswant Singh,
had passed an award earlier on April 2,1969 in respect of
certain lands situated in Tikka Bihari which has been
acquired for the very same public purpose. The Land
Acquisition Officer who had to pass the award in these cases
being of the opinion that the fertility, productivity and
potentiality of land in Tikka Bhararian (the lands in
question) were more or less comparable with those of the
lands situated in Tikka Bihari and that the classification
and valuation of lands in the award passed by Shri Jaswant
Singh were quite fair, adopted the same for the purpose of
passing the award in respect of the lands in question. It
may be mentioned here that Shri Jaswant Singh had adopted
for the purpose of valuation of lands the principle of
capitalisation. He was of the view that the rule of 20 years
purchase was to be adopted. He accordingly after determining
the net annual profit per kanal of land of the best category
at Rs. 50 and multiplying it by 20 arrived at Rs. 1,000 as
the value of one kanal of the best variety of land. In order
to determine the net annual profit from the land, it appears
that he had carried out a crop cutting experiment on some
Plot of land after the publication of the notification under
section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act. It would appear
that on behalf of the Department, a statement had been filed
showing that the lands of similar quality were being sold at
or about the time of publication of the notification under
section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act at Rs. 300 per
kanal. Shri Jaswant Singh (the Land Acquisition Officer)
found that a mean between the valuation arrived at by him by
adopting the principle of capitalisation i.e.. Rs. 1,000/-
per kanal and Rs. 300/- per kanal which, according to the
Department was the value of the best category of land in the
area would be a reasonable compensation. Accordingly by
adding the above two figures and dividing the total by two
he arrived at Rs. 650/- per kanal as the value of the best
category of land and reduced the value proportionately in
respect of other categories of land which were lower in
quality. Virtually what was awarded was equivalent to
thirteen times the net annual income.
Aggrieved by the award passed by the Land Acquisition
Officer, the claimants demanded that a reference should be
made under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the
Civil Court for the determination of proper compensation
payable to them. Accordingly the cases were referred to the
District Court of Kangra at Dharamsala. Alongwith these
references, several other references also had
222
been made to that Court in respect of several other bits of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10
lands situated at Tikka Bihari Tikka Bhararian which had
been acquired at or about the same time. The learned
District Judge who tried the cases was of the view that the
oral evidence adduced by the owners of the land on whom the
burden of proof lay could not be relied upon. After
discarding the oral evidence, the learned District Judge
determined the market value of the land by adopting the
capitalisation principle. He determined the compensation by
multiplying the net annual income from each category of land
by 20. Accordingly he fixed the compensation of the best
category of land at Rs. 1,000 per kanal having held that the
net annual income per kanal of that class of land was Rs.
50. For this purpose he appears to have relied on the result
of the crop cutting experiment about which there was no
evidence before him He rejected the reason given by the Land
Acquisition Officer for reducing the compensation from Rs.
1,000 to Rs. 650 on the ground that the Department had
asserted that the land of similar quality was being sold at
or about the relevant time at Rs. 300 per kanal. The
compensation was fixed at comparatively lower rates in
respect of other classes of land which were involved in
these cases except in the case of G.M. abadi land for which
he fixed at Rs. 650 per kanal. Aggrieved by the decision of
the District Judge, the Union of India and the State of
Himachal Pradesh preferred appeals before the High Court of
Himachal Pradesh. The appellants contended that the methods
adopted by Land Acquisition Officer and the District Judge
were both faulty and if the principle adopted by them was
used in respect of all the 70,000 acres of land acquired,
the Government would suffer a huge loss.
It is necessary to state here that in the meanwhile the
High Court disposed of two appeals being R.F.A. Nos. 16 and
17 of 1970 in respect of the same lands in Tikka Bihari
where the two learned Judges (R.S. Pathak, C.J. (as he then
was) and D.B. Lal, J.) who heard the said appeals by their
separate judgments dated January 14, 1976 set aside the
judgment of the District Judge and remanded the cases for
fresh disposal to the District Court. Pathak, C.J. in the
course of his judgment observed :
"In my opinion the position is this. The Collector
had determined the market value at Rs. 1000 per kanal
of the best category of land. He did this on the basis
of a method recognised in law. He then took into
account
223
an offer of Rs. 300 per kanal made by the State. He did
not, when taking that rate into account, determine
whether it was based on valid material on the record.
He acted arbitrarily in taking that offer into account.
Moreover, although he took that offer into account, he
did not accept it as a proper basis for determining the
market value. He embarked on the novel method of
adopting a mean between the market value of Rs. 1000
per kanal determined by him and the offer of Rs. 300
per kanal made by the State. The learned Additional
District Judge was entirely right in holding that the
award of the Collector was misconceived. But the
learned Additional District Judge then proceeded wholly
on the basis of the market value of Rs. 1000 per kanal
determined by the Collector. What he should also have
done was to determine whether the exemplars on the
record could serve as a guide for determining the
market value. It is this error which has vitiated the
decision of the learned Additional District Judge".
After remand the claimants in those cases adduced some
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10
evidence which was not of much value. Again the District
Judge arrived at the very same valuation which had been
determined by that Court earlier. The appellants once again
preferred appeals before the High Court. The High Court
dismissed those appeals in limine by a short order dated May
20, 1981. The appeals filed against that order are also
before us now.
Now coming back to the present appeals which arise out
of R.F.A. No. 262 of 1980 and connected cases which were
disposed of by a common judgment dated September 22, 1980,
the High Court dismissed all the said connected appeals. The
present appeals are filed against that common judgment after
obtaining the special leave of this Court under Article 136
of the Constitution. Although the award passed by the Land
Acquisition Officer deals with 18 classes of lands, we are
concerned in this case with some of them only. The rates of
compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and the
District Judge for the following classes of land involved in
these cases are as follows :
224
Class of Land Rate per kanal Rate per kanal
fixed in the award fixed by the
of the Land District Judge
Acquisition Officer
Nehri awal Rs. 650 per kanal Rs. 1000 per
kanal
Nehri Bramdi Rs. 520 -do- Rs. 800 -do-
Barani Dofasli Rs. 455 -do- Rs. 700 -do-
Barani Ekfasli Rs. 390 -do- Rs. 600 -do-
Banjar Kadim Rs. 260 -do- Rs. 400 -do-
G.M. Abadi Rs. 650 -do- Rs. 1000 -do-
(In Himachal Pradesh, 1 acre = 8 kanals)
The High Court has confirmed the rates fixed by the
District Judge.
At the outset we should state that we are not happy
about the manner in which the proceedings have gone on in
these and other similar cases relating to the acquisition of
land for the Beas Project. As mentioned earlier the total
extent of land acquired is 70,000 acres. We are told there
are nearly 800 cases before this Court arising out of those
acquisition proceedings. There may be many others which have
not yet reached this Court. The only method of valuation
adopted in all cases appears to be the capitalisation
method. The evidence regarding the crop cutting experiment
said to have been conducted is not satisfactory. The crop in
question is said to have been grown after the acquisition
proceedings commenced only for the purpose of determining
the compensation. Naturally if such crop is grown by the
owner, there is bound to be some anxiety on his part to
adopt extraordinary agricultural practices to show a higher
yield than what would be the normal yield of the land. It is
seen that the direction given by Pathak, C.J. in the order
of remand passed in 1976 in the cases pertaining to lands in
Tikka Bihari referred to above appears not to have been kept
in view either by the District Court and by the High Court
when they subsequently disposed of hundreds of cases arising
out of these land acquisition proceedings. The approach on
their part has been very casual. The fact that any error
committed in one of these cases would affect the
compensation payable in respect of 70,000 acres of land does
not appear to have weighed with the District Court and the
High Court. The spirit behind the observation made by one of
us (A.P. Sen, J,) on the question of fixing the compensation
for lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act in the
minority judgment of this Court
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10
225
in The Collector. Raigarh v. Dr. Harisingh Thakur and Anr.
and Vice Versa to the effect that
"While it is not suggested that unfairly low value
should be offered, on the other hand the temptation to
over-generosity must be equally resisted. Such
generosity at the public expense reacts against the
development and against the prosperity of the country
and imposes an unnecessary burden on the taxpayer"
appears to be lacking in the disposal of these cases by the
District Court and the High Court.
In these and other connected cases, neither the Land
Acquisition Officer nor the High Court and the District
Court have adopted the other well-known methods of valuation
of land namely, the price paid within a reasonable time in
bona fide transactions in respect of the land acquired or
adjacent lands which possess similar advantages, the price
which a willing buyer was prepared to pay to a willing
seller of such lands or the opinion of valuers or experts.
They have all followed the capitalisation method by adopting
the 20 years’ purchase rule. In the absence of any reliable
evidence to adopt the other methods of valuation, we are
also driven in these cases to adopt the very same
capitalisation method in disposing of these appeals.
Although we are not satisfied with the determination of the
net annual profit from each plot of land acquired in these
proceedings, we have to adopt the finding of the District
Court which has been affirmed by the High Court on the facts
and in the circumstances of these cases as none of the
parties has questioned it.
The only question which remains to be determined is the
appropriate number of years purchase that should be followed
in the case of acquisition made in the years 1962 and 1963.
The relevant date for determining compensation of a
property acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is
the date on which the notification under section 4 (1) is
published. The capitalised value of a property is the amount
of money whose annual interest at the highest prevailing
interest at any given time will be its net annual income.
The net annual income from a land is arrived at by deducting
from the gross annual income all out goings such as
expenditure
226
on cultivation, Land revenue etc. The net return from landed
property generally speaking, reflects the prevalent rate of
interest on safe money investments. It is on this basis,
Rajamannar offg. C. J. held in T. Radhakrishna Chettiar v.
The Province of Madras that the number of years’ purchase to
be adopted was 33 1/3 where the interest paid on gilt-edged
securities at the time of acquisition i. e. in 1942 was 3%
per annum. But the same learned Chief Justice held in Sri
Lakshmi Narasimha Devaru & Anr. v. The Revenue Divisional
Officer. Mangalore & Anr. that 20 years’ purchase was the
appropriate rule to be followed in determining the value of
agricultural Land acquired in the year 1943 by
capitalisation method. In State of Kerala v. Hassan Koya in
the case of a Land with building acquired in the year 1954
when Government securities were yielding 3 1/2% per annum,
this Court upheld the decision of the Kerala High Court
which had adopted 33 1/3 as the multiple for determining
compensation payable in respect of it. For a land acquired
in the year 1952. this Court in The State of West Bengal v.
Shyama Pada etc. awarded compensation at 20 times the net
annual income. In Varadarajulu Naidu v. The Revenue
Divisional Officer, Tirukoilur, the High Court of Madras in
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10
the case of a land acquired in the year 1956 adopted the
rule of 11 years’ purchase. In Oriental Gas Ltd. & Ors. v.
State of West Bengal, the Constitution Bench of this Court
speaking through Chinnappa Reddy, J. observed:
"The next target of Mr. Sen’s attack was the
choice of the multiplier. He submitted that in the year
1962 gilt-edged securities were fetching no more than
six per cent per annum and therefore, not eight, but
some other higher multiplier should have been
specified.
The argument of Shri Sen is based on the
observation of Shah, J., in Cooper’s case that
‘capitalisation of the net annual value of the property
at a rate equal in normal cases to the return from
gilt-edged securities’ was an important method of
determination of compensation. The very use of the word
normal by Shah J., indicates
227
that it was not intended to lay down any invariable
rule that whenever a method of capitalisation of net
profit was adopted, the return from gilt-edged
securities was to be the basis. That should depend on a
variety of circumstances such as the nature of the
property, the normal return which may be expected on
like investment, the state of the capital market and
several such factors. For example, it is well known
that a large investment yields a higher return that a
smaller investment and similarly a long term investment
yields a better return than a short term investment. A
different principle and a different multiplier may have
to be applied to different kinds of property, such as,
agricultural land, residential buildings, industrial
undertakings etc. In the case of a going business or
industrial undertaking the appropriate multiplier may
be determined on the basis of the annual return of an
undertaking with similar capital investment. If the
Legislature thinks that a return of 12 1/2% in the case
of a large industrial undertaking such as the
petitioner’s is reasonable and on that basis adopts the
multiplier ‘eight’, it is not for this Court to sit in
judgment and attempt to determine a more appropriate
multiplier. We are unable to see how the adoption of
the particular multiplier in the present case is the
result of the application of any irrelevant principle.
We do not, therefore, agree with the submission of Shri
Sen.,’
In the above case the Court felt that if 12 1/2% was
the annual return, the adoption of multiplier ‘eight’ could
not be unreasonable in the year 1962 in the case of an
industrial undertaking.
A perusal of the decisions referred to above and some
others which have not been cited here shows that in India
the multiplier which is adopted in determining the
compensation by the capitalisation method has been 33 1/3,
25, 20, 16 3/2 11 and 8. The number of years’ purchase has
gradually, decreased as the prevailing rate of interest
realisable from safe investments has gradually increased the
higher the rate of interest, the lower the number of years’
purchase. This method of valuation involves capitalising the
net income that the property can fairly be expected to
produce and the rate of capitalisation is the percentage of
return on his investment that a willing buyer would expect
228
from the property during the relevant period. It was once
felt that the relevant rate of interest that should be taken
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10
into consideration was the interest which gilt-edged
securities or Government bonds would normally fetch. The
safety and liquidity of the investment in bonds were relied
on as the twin factors to take the view that the interest on
gilt-edged securities should alone be taken into
consideration. This was at a time when there were not many
avenues of safe investments and investment in private
commercial concerns was not quite reliable. But from the
year 1959-60 circumstances have gradually changed. There are
many State Banks and nationalised banks in which deposits
made are quite safe. Even in the share market we have many
‘blue chips’ which command stability and other attendant
benefits such as the possibility of issue of bonus shares
and rights shares and appreciation of the value of the
shares themselves. They are attracting a lot of capital
investment. A return of 10% per annum on such safe
investments is almost assured. Today nobody thinks of
investing on land which would yield a net income of just 5%
to 6% per annum. A higher return of the order of 10% usually
anticipated. Even in the years 1962 and 1963 an investor in
agricultural land expected annual net return of at least 8%.
It means that if the land yielded a net annual income Rs. 8
a willing buyer of land would have paid for it Rs. 100 i. e.
a little more than 12 times the annual net income. The
multiplier for purposes of capitalisation would be about
thirteen.
On the question of the potential value of the lands
involved in these cases, we may state here that there is no
evidence suggesting that the lands were likely to be in
demand for any other purpose. They were all agricultural
lands or banjar lands on which no agricultural operations
could be carried on. They were situated in a hilly tract.
There were no potential buyers who were in need of this vast
tract of 70,000 acres. If the project work had not been
undertaken possibly there would have been no occasion for
the sale of all these lands in one lot.
Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the
case we feel that the High Court and the District Court
erred in applying the twenty years, purchase rule in the
case of these lands which were acquired in the years 1962
and 1963. The proper principle was fifteen years’ purchase
rule. The District Judge awarded compensation in all these
cases at Rs. 1,000 per kanal for the land of the first
category by applying the twenty years’ purchase rule and has
fixed the compensation for other lands on the above basis.
The
229
High Court has affirmed it. Since we have held that the
proper basis of fixing compensation in these cases was
fifteen years’ purchase rule, the compensation awarded for
lands in these cases should be reduced by one-fourth i.e.
for lands of the first category compensation payable should
be Rs. 750 per kanal instead of Rs. 1,000 per kanal.
Similarly in the case of other lands also there should be a
reduction of the compensation awarded by one-fourth. The
claimants shall get solatium of 15% on the compensation
computed on the above basis and they shall be paid interest
at the rate ordered by the District Judge on the aggregate
amount from the date of taking possession of the land till
the date of payment. The orders passed by the High Court in
all these cases shall stand modified accordingly.
The appeals are accordingly allowed in part. Parties
shall bear their own costs throughout.
N.V.K. Appeals partly allowed.
230
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10