Login
  • Bookmark
  • PDF
  • Share
  • CaseIQ

Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Basalingappa Parappa Angadi

Karnataka High Court
Jan 7, 1986
Judgment
Subsequent
References
CaseIQ
Case Information
CITATION CODES
citation codes
CASE NO.

M.F.A No. 277 of 1984

Attorney(S)

Mr. R.P Hiremath, Government Advocate for Appellant

Mr. S.R Bannurmath for Respondent

JUDGES

Kulkarni

Laxmeshwar, JJ.

ACTS

provisions of sub-section (1A) of Section 23 of the principal Act,

Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act. Section 23(1A)

SECTION 28 LAND ACQUISITION ACT

provisions of sub-section (1-A) of Section 23

LAND ACQUISITION ACT

Section 30 of the amending Act

Section 4, sub-section (1),

See more information ... Less ...
Important Paras
Please sign up to view Important Paras.
Smart Summary (Beta)

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal was filed by the Land Acquisition Officer against the judgment and award dated 25-8-1983 of the Additional Civil Judge, Bijapur, in L.A.C. No. 732 of 1982, which had fixed compensation at Rs. 8,250 per acre. The land in dispute was Survey No. 62/1 totalling 6 acres 14 guntas in Takkalki Village, Muddebihal Taluk, acquired for the Upper Krishna Project following a preliminary notification published on 11-2-1971. The Trial Court had accepted a higher market value (Rs. 8,250 per acre) by using the capitalisation method and additionally increased the value by 10% as a gift; the Land Acquisition Officer appealed against that award.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. What is the correct method to determine market value of the acquired dry land where sale statistics for the village are unavailable (capitalisation method vs other methods)?
  2. What is the correct assessment of cropping pattern and productive yield of the land (one crop — rabi — vs two crops) based on the evidence?
  3. What multiplier should be applied in capitalisation — whether a multiplier of 12½ (as contended) or a maximum of 10 (as held by higher authority) should be adopted?
  4. Whether the Trial Court could lawfully enhance the market value by an additional 10% as a "gift".
  5. Whether the claimant is entitled to additional compensation under amended Section 23(1A) (12% per annum) given the transitional provisions in Section 30 of the amending Act.
  6. Whether, under the amended Land Acquisition Act provisions, the claimant is entitled to solatium at 30% and future interest at 9% per annum (or 15% per annum if compensated amount is not deposited within one year of dispossession).

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant (Land Acquisition Officer)

  • Asserted that only one crop (rabi) was being raised in the village; thus, the Trial Court's finding of two crops was unsupported.
  • Provided lower estimates of yield: rabi jowar about 3 quintals per acre and cotton about 2¼ or 2½ quintals per acre, though the Officer's evidence was acknowledged to be not founded on collected material.
  • Contended that the market value should be determined by capitalisation given lack of local sale statistics.

Claimant

  • Asserted that two crops were being raised (groundnut as first crop and white jowar or cotton as second crop) with subsidiary crops such as agasi and kusabi; claimed high yields (e.g., 30–35 bags groundnut, 20–25 bags jowar, 5 quintals cotton, etc.).
  • Argued for adoption of multiplier 12½ (relying on earlier case where such a concession was made) and contended entitlement to benefits under amended Section 23(1A) (12% per annum) and to higher solatium and future interest under amended provisions.

Learned Government Advocate (Respondent / State)

  • Contended that the Supreme Court decision in Bhag Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh had been referred to a larger Bench and should not be applied (argument rejected by the Court because that Supreme Court decision had not been stayed or shown to be overruled).

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Davanagere v. Kotriah (1976 2 KLJ 318) Supports the view that subsidiary crops should not be separately taken into account when assessing yield of main crops; subsidiary crops reduce main-crop yield. The Court relied on this authority to justify not treating subsidiary crops as augmenting the yield and instead allowing slightly higher assumed yields for main crops without separately accounting for subsidiary crops.
Special Land Acquisition Officer, Davanagere v. Veerahhadrappa (ILR 1984 KAR 411 — 1984 2 SCC 120) Addressed the appropriate multiplier (in that matter a concession for 12½ was made but the Supreme Court concluded 10 was proper); establishes that the Supreme Court's finding that multiplier should not exceed 10 is binding under Article 141. The Court rejected the claimant's submission to adopt multiplier 12½ and held that 10 is the proper multiplier, as required by Supreme Court precedent and binding law.
The Special Land Acquisition Officer, S.V.H.E.P Sagar v. B. Channaveerappa (1967 2 Mys. L.J. 296) Holds that a Court has no jurisdiction to artificially increase market value by awarding an additional percentage (a "gift") over market value determined by proper method. The Court set aside the Trial Court's additional 10% "gift" awarded over market value, citing this precedent as supporting that such an enhancement is impermissible.
Raghbir Singh (Deceased by L.Rs) v. Union of India (AIR 1985 Delhi 228) Interpreted Section 30(1) (transitional provision) to extend Section 23(1A) to proceedings pending on 30-4-1982 in which no award had been made and to proceedings commenced after 30-4-1982; suggested applicability to cases decided after 24-9-1984. The Court considered this ruling but expressly disagreed with its interpretation of Section 30(1) and declined to follow it, holding that Section 30's wording limits the availability of Section 23(1A) where an award had already been passed before 30-4-1982.
Bhag Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh (1985 3 SCC 737) Relevant to amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act concerning solatium and future interest (court treated the principle as binding unless shown to be set aside or stayed). The Court treated the principle in Bhag Singh as good law under Article 141 (not shown to be stayed) and applied the amended Act's provisions to award solatium at 30% and future interest at 9% (or 15% if not deposited within one year).
M.F.A. No. 551 of 1983 (and connected matters disposed on 3-12-1985) Internal/earlier appellate consideration by the same Court regarding multiplier (concluding multiplier should not exceed 10) and subsidiary crops issue. The Court relied on its prior reasoning in these matters (paras cited) to support adoption of multiplier 10 and to reject accounting for subsidiary crops separately.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court proceeded through a fact-based and statutory analysis, applying evidentiary scrutiny, statutory construction and precedent:

  1. Evaluation of evidence on cropping and source of irrigation:
    • The claimant's evidence that two crops were raised and that there was a water source was found to be unsatisfactory, tainted, interested and self-serving; the claimant did not produce record of rights or other corroborative material.
    • The Land Acquisition Officer's evidence indicated only one crop being raised in Takkalki Village; on that basis the Trial Court's finding that only one crop (rabi) was being raised was held to be justified.
  2. Choice of valuation method:
    • Because there were no sale statistics available in Takkalki Village, the Court accepted that the capitalisation method was the only viable method to determine market value.
  3. Assessment of realistic yield:
    • The Court rejected the claimant's exaggerated yield figures as implausible for the drought-prone Bijapur area and considered the Land Acquisition Officer's lower estimates, while noting those estimates lacked proper material support.
    • Balancing the claimant's overstatement and the Officer's underestimation, and taking account of fertility (black cotton soil and proximity to Krishna bank), the Court held as reasonable that per acre yield would be about 4 quintals of rabi jowar or 2½ quintals of cotton.
  4. Computation of value by capitalisation:
    • Using the A.P.M.C. price notification (Exhibit P2) showing jowar at Rs. 79 per quintal (1970–71) and cotton at Rs. 490 per quintal, the Court computed a two-year gross value of Rs. 1,541 (jowar + cotton) and hence Rs. 770 per year.
    • Deducting cultivation charges at 40% for dry land (Rs. 308), the net annual value of crops was Rs. 462 per acre.
    • Applying the multiplier of 10 (as bound by higher authority), the market value per acre was fixed at Rs. 4,620 (Rs. 462 × 10).
  5. Rejection of additional 10% "gift":
    • The Trial Court had added 10% to the market value claiming the land fetched higher than average value. The appellate bench held that the Court has no jurisdiction to increase the market value by awarding an additional percentage as a "gift" and set aside that 10%, citing precedent.
  6. Multiplier issue:
    • The claimant urged adoption of multiplier 12½ based on a concession in an earlier case; the Court refused, explaining that the Supreme Court's conclusion that the multiplier should not exceed 10 is binding under Article 141.
  7. Applicability of amended Section 23(1A) and transitional Section 30:
    • The Court read Section 30 of the amending Act to make the benefit of Section 23(1A) (12% per annum) available only to proceedings in which no award had been passed by the Collector before 30-4-1982 or proceedings commenced after that date.
    • Since an award in this case was passed in 1980, the Court held Section 23(1A) did not apply and rejected the claimant's contention to the contrary.
    • The Court considered the Delhi High Court's contrary view in Raghbir Singh but expressly declined to follow it.
  8. Solatium and future interest under amended Act:
    • The Court accepted the effect of the Amended Act (and the principle in Bhag Singh) that under amended Section 28 the claimant is entitled to solatium at 30% and future interest at 9% per annum; and if compensation is not deposited within one year from dispossession, future interest at 15% per annum applies.
    • The Court rejected the Government Advocate's submission that Bhag Singh should not govern because it had been referred to a larger Bench, noting there was no stay or setting aside of that decision.
  9. Disposition:
    • On balance the Court modified the Trial Court's award, allowing the appeal in part and fixing market value by capitalisation at Rs. 4,620 per acre, subject to solatium and future interest under the amended Act.

Holding and Implications

Core Holding: The appeal is allowed in part and the Trial Court's judgment and award are modified. The claimant is awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 4,620 per acre, with solatium at 30% and future interest at 9% per annum as per the amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act; if compensation is not deposited within one year from the date of dispossession, the claimant is entitled to future interest at 15% per annum.

Implications and immediate effects:

  • The Trial Court's additional 10% enhancement ("gift") to the market value is set aside.
  • The multiplier to be used in the capitalisation method was held not to exceed 10, and a multiplier of 10 was applied in this case to compute market value.
  • The claimant is not entitled to the benefits of amended Section 23(1A) (12% per annum) in this case because the Collector's award had already been passed in 1980 (prior to the cutoff date in Section 30); the Court rejected the contrary interpretation by the Delhi High Court in Raghbir Singh.
  • The Court applied the amended statutory provisions (as interpreted in Bhag Singh and under Article 141) to award solatium at 30% and future interest at 9% (15% if not deposited within one year), thereby giving effect to the amended Land Acquisition Act's remedial measures in this appellate determination.

Note: This summary is confined strictly to the information, findings and legal reasoning contained in the provided opinion and does not add facts or inferences beyond that text.

Show all summary ...

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

Kulkarni, J.:— This is an appeal by the Land Acquisition Officer against the judgment and award dated 25-8-1983 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Bijapur, in L.A.C No. 732 of 1982 awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 8,250/- per acre.

2. Survey No. 62/1 measuring 6 acres 14 guntas of Takkalki Village in Muddebihal Taluk, was acquired for Upper Krishna Project as per the preliminary Notification published on 11-2-1971.

3. The claimant stated that there was source of water for irrigating the land in question and that he was raising two crops in the land in question. There is no satisfactory evidence to show that there was any source of water to irrigate the land. He has not produced the record of rights to show that he was raising two crops. But for the tainted, interested and self-serving say of the claimant, there is no other evidence to show that two crops were being raised in the land in question. The Land Acquisition Officer also has stated that one crop alone was being raised in Takkalki Village. Therefore, under these circumstances, the Trial Court was justified in holding that one crop, that too, rabi crop alone was being raised in the land in question.

4. There are no sale statistics available in Takkalki Village. Therefore, the only method whereby the market value of the land can be determined, is by adopting the capitalisation method.

5. The claimant has stated that he was raising groundnut as first crop and white jowar or cotton as second crop with subsidiary crops like agasi and kusabi. It is not the case of the claimant himself that he was raising gram i.e kadli as a subsidiary crop. Therefore it is really surprising that the Court below should hold that the claimant was raising kadli also. Therefore, in our opinion, the Trial Court, it appears, has not looked into the evidence of the claimant.

6. The claimant has stated that he was getting 30 to 35 bags of groundnut or 20 to 25 bags of jowar or 5 quintals of cotton and 5 bags of kusabi and 4 bags of agasi and 7 or 8 cartloads of fodder per acre. If this be the yield, Bijapur would cease to be a drought area. Bijapur is proverbially drought stricken area. The evidence of the claimant about the said yield is highly exaggerated and is nothing but an attempt to get as much compensation as possible under the circumstances. Therefore, the Trial Court rightly refused to accept the evidence of the claimant regarding the yield.

7. The Land Acquisition Officer has stated in his evidence that the soil of the land in question is black cotton soil and is alluvial soil and the land is abutting the bank of the river Krishna. He has stated that the yield of rabi jowar was 3 quintals per acre and that the yield of cotton was 2¼ quintals per acre. Even the said evidence of the Land Acquisition Officer cannot be too readily accepted, because he himself has stated in his award that the yield of the cotton was 2½ quintals. The Land Acquisition Officer has not collected any materials to show even the approximate yield of the different varieties of crops in the land. Therefore the present case suffers from lack of proper material and evidence.

8. It is no use sending back the matter to the Court below for fresh disposal because the preliminary Notification is of the year 1971. The land must have been submerged or is likely to be submerged early. Therefore taking into consideration the exaggerated version of the claimant and taking into consideration the underestimate of the Land Acquisition Officer, and taking into consideration that the soil of the land is black cotton soil and that the land is practically abutting the river Krishna, and thus taking into consideration the fertility of the soil, it would not be unreasonable if we hold that 1 acre of land would yield about 4 quintals of rabi jowar or 2½ quintals of cotton. As per the price Notification issued by the A.P.M.C produced at Exhibit P2, one uintal of jowar was fetching Rs. 79/- in 1970-1971 and one quintal of cotton was fetching Rs. 490/-. The value of 4 quintals of white jowar at the rate of Rs. 79/- per quintal would come to Rs. 316/-. The value of 21 quintals of cotton at the rate of Rs. 490/- per quintal would come to Rs. 1,225/-. Therefore, the value of jowar and cotton would together come to Rs. 1,541/-. This is the value of the gross yield for two years. Therefore the gross value of the crops for one year would come to Rs. 770/-. The dry cultivation does not require much cultivation expense. Manure is given generally once in 3 years. Much amount is not required to be spent over the removal of the weeds. Therefore in the case of dry lands, 40 per cent of the yield can be taken as cultivation charges. 40 per cent of Rs. 770/- would come to Rs. 308/-. If this is deducted from Rs. 770/-, the net value of the crops would come to Rs. 462/- per year.

9. The Learned Counsel Shri Bannurmath submitted that along with the main crop i.e jowar or cotton, subsidiary crops like agasi, kusabi and grams were also being raised in the land. This aspect of the matter has been considered by us in M.F.A No. 551 of 19831. If subsidiary crops are assumed to be raised, it would affect the yield of the main crops like jowar and cotton. The subsidiary crops would also sack the fertility and moisture and they would require additional space. To that extent, the yield of the main crop would be diminished and affected. Therefore we have concluded in M.F.A No. 551 of 1983 that the subsidiary crops should not be taken into consideration while the yield of the main crops is taken on a little higher side as we have done in this case. This is also the view taken by this Court in The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Davanagere v. Kotriah . 1976 2 KLJ 318..

10. The Learned Counsel Shri Bannurmath for the claimant urged that in view of the decision reported in Special Land Acquisition Officer, Davaoagere v. Veerahhadrappa . ILR 1984 KAR 411 - 1984 2 SCC 120 the multiplier of 12½ should be adopted. It was a case where the Advocate appearing for the Karnataka State in the Supreme Court went out of the way and made a concession that 12½ should be adopted as the multiplier. The Supreme Court had come to the conclusion in the said case that 10 would be the proper multiplier. The Supreme Court on account of the concession made by the Advocate for the Karnataka State, was rather helpless in the matter. But the finding of the Supreme Court that the multiplier should not exceed 10, is the law of the land as per Article 141 of the Constitution and it is binding on all the Courts in this Country. A similar question had arisen before us in M.F.A, No. 551 of 1983 and other connected matters disposed of by us on 3-12-1985. This aspect of the matter has been considered in greater detail in para 16 of our Judgment and we have ultimately come to the conclusion that the multiplier to be adopted should not exceed 10. Therefore we reject the argument of the Learned Counsel Shri Bannurmath that 12½ should be taken as the multiplier.

11. It is already shown above by us that the value of the net yield per year would be Rs. 462/-. We have also indicated that the multiple of 10 should be adopted. Therefore the market value of the dry land like the suit land per acre Would come to Rs. 4,620/-.

12. The Court below, in addition to the determination of the market value by adopting the method of capitalisation, has chosen to award another 10 per cent by way of gift. The Trial Court has stated as:—

“I hold that this land fetches higher market value than the, average land and the same would be 10 per cent more and as such I propose to fix the market rate per acre at Rs. 8,250-00 for the land of the claimant.”

The compensation to be awarded by the Court should be fair and just. The Court has no jurisdiction to increase the market value of the property by awarding another 10 per cent as has been done in this case. This is also the view taken by this Court in The Special Land Acquisition Officer, S.V.H.E.P Sagar v. B. Channaveerappa . 1967 2 Mys. L.J 296.. Therefore the award of 10 per cent made by the Court below, is set aside.

13. Then the Learned Counsel Shri Bannurmath contended that the claimant is entitled to the benefit of the amended Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act. Section 23(1A) reads as:—

“in addition to the market value of the laud, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per annum on such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4, sub-section (1), in respect of such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier.”

Section 30 of the amendment Act (No. 68 of 1984) reads as:

“30. Transitional provisions. (1) The provisions of sub-section (1A) of Section 23 of the principal Act, as inserted by Clause (a) of Section 15 of this Act, shall apply, and shall be deemed to have applied, also to, and in relation to,—

(a) every proceeding for the acquisition of any land under the principal Act pending on the 30th day of April, 1982, (the date of introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1982, in the House of the People), in which no award has been made by the Collector before that date;

(b) every proceeding for the acquisition of any land under the principal Act commenced after that date, whether or not an award has been made by the Collector before the commencement of this Act.”

Therefore the said Section 30 of the amending Act makes it clear that the benefit of Section 23(1A) would be available only in the proceedings in which no award has been passed by the Collector before 30th April, 1982. In this case the award has been passed in 1980. Further sub-clause (b) also will not apply because this is a proceeding which has been started long before the said date. The benefit of sub-clause (b) would be available only if the proceedings have been started after 30th April, 1982.

14. The Learned Counsel Shri Bannurmath drew our attention to the ruling reported in Raghbir Singh (Deceased by L.Rs) v. Union of India . AIR 1985 Delhi 228.. The Delhi High Court held as:—

“The critical words in Section 30(1) which is a transitory provision are “also to”. This shows that firstly this provision of additional amount made in Section 23(1-A) will also apply and shall be deemed to have applied to every proceeding which was pending on 30-4-1982 and in which no award had been made by the Collector before that date. Secondly this provision will also apply to every proceeding for acquisition of the land which was commenced after 30-4-1982, whether or not an award has been made by the Collector before 24-9-1984. This provision applies to cases falling within the two cut off dates 30-4-1982 and 24-9-1984. But if a case is decided after 24-9-1984, after the Amendment Act has become the law of the land, the Courts are bound to give effect to the provisions of sub-section (1-A) of Section 23 which means that the landowner “in addition to the market value of the land” will also be entitled to 12 per cent per annum on such market value.”

This view of the Delhi High Court, as already shown above by us, runs contrary to the wordings used in Section 30. With all due respect to the Judges, we are not inclined to follow the view expressed by them. Therefore the argument of the Learned Counsel Shri Bannurmath that in addition to the market value, the land owner is entitled to 12 per cent as per Section 23(1A) of the Amended Act, is rejected.

15. Shri Bannurmath urged that in view of the amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, the claimant was entitled to higher solatium at 30 per cent and future interest at 9 per cent per annum or 15 per cent per annum whichever would be applicable to the facts of the case, Shri Hiremath, Learned Government Advocate, submitted that the recent decision reported in Bhag Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh . 1985 3 SCC 737 should not be applied as the matter had been referred by the Supreme Court to a larger Bench. On what points or grounds, the matter has been referred to a larger Bench, is not made clear to us at all. The said case decided by the Supreme Court is not stayed. The principle laid down would be good law under Article 141 of the Constitution for it is not shown that it is set aside or stayed. Therefore the said argument of the Learned Government Advocate Shri Hiremath is rejected. In view of the amended provisions of Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, the claimant is entitled to get solatium at 30 per cent and future interest at 9 per cent per annum. If the amount of compensation is not deposited within one year from the date of dispossession, the claimant is entitled to get future interest at 15 per cent per annum as per the amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. This is also the view taken by us in M.F.A No. 551 of 1983 and other connected appeals.

16. Therefore, under these circumstances, the Judgment and award passed by the Trial Court are modified. The appeal is allowed in part. The claimant do recover compensation at the rate of Rs. 4,620/- per acre with solatium at 30 per cent and with future interest at 9 per cent per annum as per the amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. If the amount of compensation is not deposited within one year from the date of dispossession, then the claimant is entitled to get future interest at 15 per cent per annum as per the amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.

© 2026 Gauge Data Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

x

Alert

Please log in or sign up for a free trial to access this feature.
Sign Up Login
x