STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. versus RAMA RANA AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 102 · Decided: 13-12-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. 
v. 
RAMA RANA AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 13, 1996 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Ac~ 1894: Sections 4( 1), 18 and 23. 
Land Acquisition-Compensation-Principle for determination 
C of-Land acquired for irrigation scheme-compensation awarded for dry 
crops land, inigated lands and waste lan~As there were no sale deeds 
exhibited for detennination of compensation Reference Court relied on oral 
evidence and detennined the compensation on basis of yiel~Accordingly it 
determined the market value after deducting 1/3 towards prices at Rs. 325 per 
acre-High Court confinned the same-Appeal-Held expenditure is involved 
D in raising and harvesting the crops and 011 an average 50% of the value of 
the crop ralised goes towards cultivation expenses-Therefore, deduction of 
I/3rd was not comet in detennining the compensation of the lands on the 
basis of yield-Neither claimants nor Government took steps to produce best 
evidence-But oral evidence of witnesses cannot be ·rejected on that ground 
E alone-court has statutory duty to the society to subject the oral evidence to 
great scmtiny-Multiplier of JO years should be applied and deduction of 50% 
towards cultivation expenses should be made-claimants held entitled to 
solatium and interest. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 16945-64 
F of 1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.9.95 of the Gujarat High 
Court in F.A. No. 2530-49 of 1995. 
Yashank Adhyaru, Ms. S. Hazarika and Mrs. H. Wahi for the 
G Appellants. 
P.S. Rao, Ms. Deepa and P.H. Parekh for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
H 
Delay condoned. Leave granted. 
102 
[ 
/ . 
STAIB v. RAMARANA 
103 
We have heard learned counsel on both sides. These appeals by A 
special leave arise from the judgment of the Gujarat High Court, made on 
September 22, 1995 in P.A. Nos. 2532- 2549/95. 
-.. 
A total extent of 68 hectares 62.5 sq. mts. of land was acquired for 
irrigation scheme by publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of B 
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1of1894) (for short, the Act), on August 
25, 1977. The Land Acquisition Officer in his award dated March 27, 1978 
awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 2023.50 per acre for the dry crop 
lands, Rs. 3035.25 for the irrigated lands, Rs. 40.47 for the waste lands. On 
reference under Section 18 of the Act, the Asstt. District Judge by his 
award and decree dated September 13, 1993 enhanced the compensation c 
to Rs. 325 per acre to all the lands irrespective of the classification .. On 
appeal, the High Court in the impugned judgment confirmed the same. 
Thus these appeals by special leave. 
The Reference Court proceeded on the premise thanhere are no D 
sale deeds exhibited for determination of the compensation. Therefore, the 
oral evidence was relied upon to determine the compensation, on the basis 
of the yield. 8 witnesses came to be examined in proof of the yield of the 
acquired lands. One of the witnesses was the Sarpanch of the village and 
his evidence was accepted. The Reference Court also found that the 
E 
witnesses exaggerated the yidd. On that basis, it determined the market 
value after deducting 1/3 towards prices at Rs. 325 per acre. It would be 
common knowledge that expenditure would be involved In raising and 
harvesting the crops and that, therefore, on an average 50% of the value 
of the crop the realised would go towards cultivation expenses. Therefore, 
deduction of 1/3rd was not correct in determining the compensation of the F 
lands on the basis of yield. 
It is undoubtedly true that ohe of the methods of determination of 
. ,. 
compensation, in the absence of best evidence, namely, sale deeds, is the 
realised value of the crop. Normally, they should have produced the G 
statistics from the Agricultlire Department as to the nature of the crops 
.. , 
and the prices prevailing at that time. But tmfortunately, neither claimants 
nor the Government took any steps to a~l!c~ that best evidence. It is a 
fact that the Government have failed to adduce any evidence in that behalf. 
However, we cannot reject the oral evidence of the witnesses on that 
ground alone. The court has statutory duty to the society to subject the oral H 
104 
SUPREME COURTREPORTS(1996] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 
A evidence to great scrutiny, applying the test of normal prudent man, i.e., 
whether he would be willing to purchase the land at the rates proposed by 
/ 
the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.