HIRABAI & ORS. versus L.A.O. CUM ASST. COMMNR.

Citation: [2010] 11 S.C.R. 1051 · Decided: 23-09-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 11 S.C.R. 1051 
HIRABAI & ORS. 
v. 
L.A.O. CUM ASST. COMMNR. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2042-44 of 2004) 
SEPTEMBER 23, 2010 
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND ANIL 
R. DAVE, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 4(1) and 6 - Acquisition 
A 
B 
of sugarcane growing irrigated lands, and dry lands - Market 
C 
value - Determination of - High Court applying capitalisation 
method of valuation for calculation of market value of both the 
lands - Enhancement of market value for irrigated lands from 
Rs. 45,9001- to Rs. 75,6001- per acre and in respect of dry 
lands from Rs. 31,5001- to Rs. 38,0001- per acre- Interference 
D 
with - Held: Not called for. 
A Notification was issued to acquire sugarcane 
growing irrigated lands and dry lands belonging to the 
appellants for certain project. The Land Acquisition 
Officer passed an award fixing the market value of the 
acquired irrigated land at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per acre, 
and for the dry lands at the rate of Rs. 13,000/- per acre. 
The reference court enhanced the compensation for dry 
lands from Rs. 13,000/- to Rs. 31,5001- per acre and for the 
irrigated lands from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 45, 900/- per acre. 
The High Court enhanced the market value for the 
irrigated lands at the rate of Rs. 75,600/- per acre and in 
respect of dry lands at Rs. 38,000/- per acre. Therefore, 
the appellants filed the instant appeals. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. There is no reasonable ground to interfere 
with the decisions of the High Court for fixing the market 
1051 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1052 
SUPREME COURT REPORT$ 
[2010) 11 S.C.R. 
A value of sugarcane growing irrigated lands at Rs. 75,600/ 
- per acre and at Rs. 38,000/- per acre for the dry lands. 
[Para 21) (1063-B] 
2.1 The documents filed on. benalf of the appellants 
8 to justify their claim at Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre, were not 
accepted by the High Court as the said lands covered by 
the sale deeds were lands which were situated at a 
distance of 2 to 3 kilometers from the acquired lands. 
There is no definite evidence to indicate the nature and 
quality of the said land, and hence, there is nothing on 
C record to show their comparability with the acquired 
lands. The High Court rightly kept the said sale deeds out 
of its consideration for lands situated about 2 to 3 
kilometers away, which could not be said to be 
comparable lands with that of the acquired lands. There 
D was no other direct documentary evidence which could 
prove and establish or act as a guide in determining the 
market value of the acquired lands. Therefore, the High 
Court fell back upon the capitalisation method of 
valuation for the acquired lands and in that process it 
E relied upon the extract of the Fully Revised Estimate of 
Area, Production and Average yield of Commercial Crops 
in Karnataka for 1995-96 published by the Directorate of 
Economics and Statistics which was the safe guide to 
determine the market value of the acquired lands on the 
F basis of capitalisation method. The High Court considered 
the said document and found that during 1995-96, the 
relevant year in which the notification for acquisition of 
the land in the instant case was issued, the average yield 
of sugarcane per hectare was 90 tonnes for the State of 
G Karnataka and the average yield per hectare for Bijapur 
District was 106 tonnes and, therefore, according to the 
Division Bench average .yield per acre was 36.422 tonnes 
[rounded off to 36 tonnes] for Karnataka and 42.89 tonnes 
for Bijapur District. The price of jaggery at the relevant 
H 
HIRABAI & ORS. v. L.A.0. CUM ASST. COMMNR. 1053 
time was Rs. 700/- per quintal and on the basis thereof 
A 
and after making calculation, the High Court came to the 
finding that the market value on the basis of the 
capitalisation method would come to Rs. 75,600/- for the 
acquired sugarcane growing irrigated lands. [Paras 12, 
13 and 14] [1058-G-H; 1059-A-G] 
B 
2.2 The certificate dated 24.02.1996 was shown to 
have been issued by the Assistant Director of Agriculture. 
It is not safe to rely on such a certificate, shown to have 
been issued by a Government officer without the author 
of the said certificate being produced for testing the 
C 
veracity of the certificate and the contents thereof and 
also to show what is the method of calculation to arrive 
at the said statistics. The said document was produced 
by the appellants very casually and without there being 
any further evidence in support of the said contents o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.