RAMACHANDRAIAH ETC. versus LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, SAGAR

Citation: [1973] 3 S.C.R. 262 · Decided: 10-01-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

262 
RAMACHANDRAIAH ETC. 
v. 
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, SAGAR 
January 10, 1973 
[J, M. SHl.LAT ANDY. V. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.] 
Land acquisition-Lands under personal cultivation of 
o>vner 
t11fd 
rflnds under cu!tivacion of tenants-Principles of co1npensation. 
The respondent acquired the lands of the appellants. 
Some of th.e 
lands were cultivated by the 
appellants 
themselves 
and 
others 
by 
ter.ants. 
As a result of the Mysore Ten"lncy Act, 1952, 
which 
was 
amended by Mysore Acts 16 of 1957, 24 of 1962 and 12 of 1963. and, 
the Mysore Tenant, (Temporary Protection From Eviction) Act, 1%1, 
the tenants, though they were inducted originally as 
annual 
tc;nants, 
they got as deemed 1"nants. a fixed and secured tenure for 
additional 
periods. 
The respondent rtxed compensation at Rs. 600 per acre for tank·fed 
la:ndo and· Rs. 500 per acre for rain-fed lands. 
On a reference under 
s. 18 of. the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the compcnsatiori was :ncreascd 
to Rs. 2500 per acre for tank·fed lands and 
Rs. 2000 for 
rain-kd 
lands. On appeal, the High Court fixed a uniform rate of compensa-
tion at. Rs. 1250 for all lands, whether tank-fed or rain-fed, and whether 
atf•cultivated or cultivated by tenants, 
"' Qn the question whether the High Court followed a correct principle, 
,,.. Court, in appeal, 
A 
B 
c 
D 
HELD · The matter should be remanded to the High Court for a 
E 
fresh calculation of th.e compensation. 
(I) The High Court was· in error in equating lands cultivated by 
die· tenants and those under the personal cultivat~on of the appellants 
and. applying to both a uniform measure. 
The two kinds 
of 
lands 
Ouaht to have been separately treated a;nd even if the rent in the case 
of tenant occupied l~nd was taken as a. measure for such Jand, that 
could not properly be the measure for arriving at the market value of 
the land under the 
appellants' 
personal 
cultivation, 
because, the net 
F 
return to the appellants from each of the two klnds of lands is bound 
to differ. 
The annual rent paid by the tenant n1ay not he the correct 
or real inoome obtainable bv the appellants. 
the 
rent 
agfeed 
upon 
several years ago may not be the fair rent by reason of seven\} factors 
a:nd the lands themselves may not be equal in quality, 
situation 
or 
productivity. [265 C] 
(2) In view Of the provisions of the Mysore Act. it should have been 
G 
asce-ttained whether the tenant'i h<.1d anv interest in the lnnd and whether 
they were entitled to any share in the con1pcnsution payable in respect 
of lands under their cultivation. subject to any har of limitation under 
s. 18 cf the Land Acquisition Act. lf the tenants are entitled to ttl"fY 
share of the compensation, it should be allocated to them. If this were 
to be done, the annual income of the land~ will have to he ascertained 
afresh froro the evidence on record 1.)r otherwise to arrive at the correct 
market value. [266 Fl 
II 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1353 (0 
1355 of 1967. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
RMHCHANIJRAL\H v. LANIJ ACQUISITION OFFICER (Site/al, J.) 26:1 
Appeals by certificate from the judgment and Awan'. dated 
15th September 1966 of the Mysore High Court at Bangalore in 
Misc. First Appeals Nos. 199 to 201 of 1963. 
R. B. Datar, for the appellants. 
M. Veerappa, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SHELAT, J. 
Thes~. three appeals, by certificate. are by three 
Khatedars, whose land.s were acquired for the submersion area of 
the Linganmakki reservoir ii;i Mysore State. 
The areas so ac-
quired were all wet lands and measured 29 acres and 3 7 guntas, 
3.32 acres and 8.20 acres respectively. The Special Land Acqui-
sition Officer classified these lands into rain-fed and tank-fed 
lands, i.e. one crop and two crop lands, and adopting the method 
of valuation of capitalising the annual rent paid to the appellants 
fixed Rs. 600 per acre for the tank-fed, i.e., perertially irrjgated 
wet lands, and Rs, 500 per acre for the rain-fed wet lands. He 
arrived at these figures on a finding that the average annual rent 
in respect of these lands was H pallas of paddy per acre which 
meant that the gross rent was Rs. 37.50 at the rate of Rs. 25 per 
pa1Ja. Deducting land revenue and bad debts he found that. the 
net annual income was Rs. 30 per acre. On a reference by the 
appel!ants under sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, I 894, the 
District Judge increased the valuation to Rs. 2500 per acre for 
tank-fe

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