ASSTT. COMMISSIONER-CUM-LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BELLARY versus SRI S.T. POMPANNA SETTY

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 1171 · Decided: 17-12-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RUMA PAL · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

-
t
,.
ASSTT. COMMISSIONER-CUM-LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
BELLARY
v.
SRI S.T. POMPANNA SETTY
DECEMBER 17, 2004
[RUMA PAL AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :
B
Land Acquisition-Compensation on yield basis-Determination of-
C
Deduction towards cultivation cost adopting of appropriate multiplier-On
facts, there being fruit bearing trees on the land and finding of High Court
that land-owner would be entitled to more than the compensation claimed
by him, award of compensation party modified.
Respondent's land admeasuring 5.99 acres, was acquired under the D
)
Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded
compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,728 per acre. The reference court
found that there were fruit bearing trees on the land and held that if
the income from fruit bearing trees was multiplied by capitalization of
15 years, the claimant would be entitled to more than rupees six lac. But
as the land-owner had claimed rupees five lac only, the reference court
held the said amount not to be unreasonable or excessive. The High
Court affirmed the order.
In the appeal filed by the State it was contended that in view of the
E
law laid down by the Supreme Court, the High Court erred in not F
deducting the amount towards expenses as also in confirming multiplier
of 15 as applied by the reference court.
Allowing the appeal in part, the Court
HELD : 1. The instant case relates to fruit bearing trees and not G
agriculture. The trees were sufficiently old and grown up and were giving
fruits. In the circumstances, there was not question of deduction of any
. amount towards expenses and the orders passed by the reference court
and the High Court cannot be said to be incorrect. Moreover, the High
Court also considered an important fact that the claimant would be H
1171
1172
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A
entitled to much more amount on yield-basis but as he had claimed an
amount of rupees five lac, nothing more could be paid to him. It,
therefore, cannot be said that by not deducting the amount of expenses for
cultivation, the courts below had committed any illegl\lity. [1175-B-C-D].
B
State of Gujarat v. Rama Rana, [1987] 2 SCC 693, held inapplicable.
2. Nt>rmally in the cases where compensation is awarded on yield
basis, multiplier of 10 is considered proper and appropriate. In the case
on hand, multiplier of 15 has been applied which is on a higher side. At
the same time, however, it cannot be overl~oked that the High Court
C considered the fact and observed that the claimant would be entitled to
an amount of more than rupees six lac. Since he had restricted his claim
to rupees five lac, he would not be entitled to an amount more than that.
In the facts and circumstances, therefore, ends of justice would be met
if claimant is allowed Rs. 4, 75,000 along with interest as awarded to him
D
by the reference court as well as by the High Court. [1176-E-F]
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Malik Sartaj Wali Khan and Anr.,
[2001) 10 SCC 660; Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Virupax Shankar
Nadagond, [1996) 6 SCC 124 and Special Land Acquisition Officer v.
Veerabhadarappa Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Veerabhadarappa,
E 119841 2 sec 120, relied on.
Smt. Tribeni Devi v. Collector of Ranchi, (1972) 1 SCC 48, referred
to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No. 8245 of
F 2004.
..
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.11.2002 of the Karnataka High
r
G
Court in M.F.A. No. 270 of 1996 (LAC).
Sanjay R. Hegde for the Appellant.
Naresh Kaushik, Ms. Shilpa Chohan, S.C. Gupta and Mrs. Lalita
Kaushik for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
THAKKER, J. : Delay condoned.
-,.
ASST. COMMR.-CUl\1-LAi\D ACQUISIT!Oi\ OFFICER. BELLARY 1·. SRI T.P. SETTY [THAKKER. J.] J J 73
Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against an order dated November 14, 2002
passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in MFA No. 270 of
1996 (LAC). By the said order, the High Court dismissed the appeal fiied
by the appellant herein and confirmed the order passed by the Reference
Court on September 11, 1995 in L.A.C. No. 72 of 1984.
The facts in brief are that a piece of land bearing Survey No. 33517,
admeasuring 5.99 acres situated at Sovenahalli village, Sandur Taluk was
acquired for restoration of Sovenahalli tank for the village. A notification
under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafte

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.