The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer vs Virupax Shankar Nadagouda
- SCC(1996) 6 SCC 124
- Neutral1996 INSC 915
- SCR[1996] Supp (5) SCR 25
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
When computing compensation for acquired land under Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, a multiplier of 10 years should be applied to the annual yield, not 15 years. Where an owner of land receives water from a well situated on that land to raise crops and claims compensation for the land based on the yield derived from that water, separate compensation cannot be awarded for the well itself, as the value of the well is already reflected in the compensation calculated on the basis of the land's productive capacity.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
O R D E R The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation Rs.3,500/- per acre for bagayat land and for the rest of the land (jirayat 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 of Karnataka in the impugned judgment dated September 9, 1988 confirmed 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 Officer vs. P. Veerabhadrappa etc.etc. [(1984) 2 SCR 386] followed in other judgments, had held that 10 years' multiplier would be the proper method of calculation of the compensation.
Accordingly 10 years' multiplier should be applied in determining compensation under Section 23 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. He 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 compensation for the well. Therefore, the reference Court obviously was in error 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 reference Court accordingly is directed to recalculate the compensation under these principles and determine compensation and pay over the respondents. If the amount has already been recovered it would be open to the appellant to recover the balance amount.
The appeals are accordingly allowed. No costs.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free