ADDL. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICERversusYAMANAPPA BASALINGAPPA CHALWADI

)


              ADDL. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER                                A
                                         v.
                YAMANAPPA BASALINGAPPA CHALWADI

                              FEBRUARY 22, 1994

             [K RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.]                                 B

          La11d Acquisitio11 Act, 1894: S.23-Acqulstio11 of agricultural land-
    Compe11sation-Determi11atio11 of-Capitalisation principle-Held, ten years
    multiplier is the proper method of valuing lands by capitalisation method.

          Certain agricultural lands of the respondents were acquired under
                                                                                    c
    the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The District judge, relying on the evidence
    that two dry crops were 1'2ised in tlie l~l'ld, determined value of the crops
    at Rs.720 per acre. The High Court applying a multiplier of 15 years for
    the average an,..tal income for Rs. 720 upheld the market value at Rs.800
    per acre. Hence the appeals by special leave                                    D
          Allowing th& appeals in part, this Court

          HELD: 1. Ten years multiplier is the proper method of valuing the
    lands by capitalisation method. This principle is quite consistent with the     E
    valuation of the land allowed by multiplying the value of the annual yield,
    in the absence of any other acceptable evidence. [122-E-F]

          Special La11d Acquisitio11 Officer, Davangere v. P.Veerabharappa &
    Ors., [1984] 2 SCC p. 120, relied on.
                                                                                    F
         Special Land Acquisition Officer, Hassan v. Ma/Iesha M.S., (1975) 2
    Mysore Law Journal p. 74, disapproved as regards 15 years multiplier.

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 3193-
    3215 of 1982.
                                                                                    G
         From the Judgment and Order dated 10.8.81 of the Karnataka High
    Court in M.F.A. Nos. 1406 to 1428 of 1981.

          M. Veerappa for the Appellant.

         S.C. \'fa\a tilt the Respondents.                                          H
                                        121
    122                    SuPREJ\iE COURT REPORTS                 [1994] 2 S.C.R.

A          The following Order of the Court was delivered

           These appeals by Special leave arise from the Judgmen·. Jf the High
    Court of Kamataka d&ted August 10, 1981 in Misc. Appeal Nos. 1406-
    1428/1981. The High Court follo\\ing its earlier Judgment in Special Land
    AcquisitioTJ Officer, Hassan v.Ma//esha M.S.,(1975) 2 Mysore Law Journal
B   p.74, applying a multiplier of 15 yeais for the average annual income for
    Rs. 72D per acre upheld the fiication of the market value at Rs.800 per acre.
    Thm these appeals by Special Leave. Notification under Sec.4(1)° dated
    Mau:h 13, 1980 was published in the State Gazette on July 24, 1980
    acquiring 10 acres of land for Upper Krishana Project. The Distict Judge
C   found from the evidence that the lands are madikattu lands and two dry
    crops of groundnuts in the first season, Jowar of cotton in the second rabi
    season were being raised in those lands. He determined the market value
    of the crop at Rs.720 after deducting the expenses incurred thereof.
    Though it is doubtful w!iether two crops could be raised in dry lands, under
    appeal ve pr:>ceed on the footing that the evidence adduced would show
D   that in the lands under acquisition two crops were raised and that annual
    yield w.:s at Rs.720 per acre. But the crucial question is what is the suitable
    multiplier which would be applicable to the agricultural crops. This ques-
    tion is squarely covered by a Judgment of this Court in Special land
    Acquisition Officer, Davangere v. P. Veerabharappa & Ors., [1984] 2 SCC
E   p.120. While disposing of b3tch of tl e appeals this Court held that ten years
    multiplier would be the proper method in determining the total market
    value by following the method of capitalisation as just and reasonable
    principle. We find that this principle is quite consistent mth the valuation
    of the land allowed by multiplying the value of the annual yield, in the
    absence of any other acceptable evidence. Following the ratio we hold that
F   ten years multiplier is the peoper method of valuing the lands by capitalisa-
    tion method. The appeals are accordingly allowed in part and the respon-
    dents are entitled to the solatium at 15% ilnd interest @ 5% from the date
    of taking possession till date of deposit. The appellant is ~ntitled to recover
    the balance amount from the respondents. No cost.

    R.P.                                                       Appeals allowed.




                     -·