THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
A
v.
VIRUPAX SHANKAR NADAGOUDA
'""'I,
AUGUST 21, 1996
')
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
B
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : Section 23( 1 ). Land Acquisition-Com-
pensation-Principles for detennination of-Reference Court applied multi-
c<
plier of 15 years in computing the annual yield-Compensation granted for
·~ .,..
acquisition of land-Separate compensation also awarded for well-Appeal c
prefe11"ed by State-Held the Reference Cowt eJTed in granting compensation
for the well-Setting aside of the same 10 years multiplier should be applied
to the annual value of the yield for calculation of compensation under Section
23( 1) of the Act-Reference Cowt·directed to recalculate the compensation.
1
D
'
Land Acquisition Officer v. P. Veerabhadrappa Etc. Etc., [1984] 2 SCR
386, referred to.
'
;
___,._
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 703-704
of 1989.
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.9.83 of the Karnataka High E
Court in M.F.A. Nos. 1385--86 of 1979)
M. Veerappa for the Appellant.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
F
The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation @ Rs. 3,500 .
per acre for bagayat land and for the rest of the land Girayat dry) at Rs.
960 per acre. On reference, the civil Judge enhanced the compensation to
Rs. 10,000 per acre for bagayat lands in which sugar cane was grown and
....
for the rest of the land he granted at Rs. 4000 per acre. The High Court G
-
of Karnataka in the impugned judgment dated September 9, 1988 con-
firmed the same. Thus these appeals by special leave.
Two contentions have been raised by Shri Veerappa, learned counsel
for the appellant. The Reference Court had wrongly applied multiplier of
15 years in computing the annual yield. This Court in Land Acquisition H
25
26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A
Officer v. P. Veerabhadrappa Etc. Etc., (1984] 2 SCR 386 followed in other
judgments, had held that 10 years' multiplier would b_e the proper method
of calculation of the compensation.
Accordingly 10 years' multiplier should be applied in determing
compensation under Section 23 (1) of the land Acquisition Act, 1894. He
B
also contended that separate compensation granted the well in the sum Rs.
13,000 is not valid in law. When the owner of the land is getting the water
drawn from the well to raise the crops and when he claims compensation
for the land on the basis of the yield, he cannot separately claim compen-
sation for the well. Therefore, the reference Court obviously was in error
C
in granting compensation for the well at Rs. 13,000. It is accordingly set
aside. 10 years' multiplier should be applied to the annual value of the yield
for calculation of compensation under Section 23(1) of the Act. The
referenc1~ Court accordingly is directed to recalculate the compensation
under these principles and determine the compensation and pay over the
same to the respondents. If the amount has already been recovered, it
D
would be open to the appellant to recover the balance amount.
The appeals are accordingly allowed. No costs.
T.N.A.
Appeals allowed.
--
Lex