HIRABAI & ORS.versusL.A.O. CUM ASST. COMMNR.

                   [2010] 11 S.C.R. 1051


                      HIRABAI & ORS.                              A
                             v.
               L.A.O. CUM ASST. COMMNR.
            (Civil Appeal Nos. 2042-44 of 2004)
                  SEPTEMBER 23, 2010
                                                                  B
        [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND ANIL
                   R. DAVE, JJ.]

     Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 4(1) and 6 - Acquisition
of sugarcane growing irrigated lands, and dry lands - Market      C
value - Determination of - High Court applying capitalisation
method of valuation for calculation of market value of both the
lands - Enhancement of market value for irrigated lands from
Rs. 45,9001- to Rs. 75,6001- per acre and in respect of dry
lands from Rs. 31,5001- to Rs. 38,0001- per acre- Interference    D
with - Held: Not called for.

     A Notification was issued to acquire sugarcane
growing irrigated lands and dry lands belonging to the
appellants for certain project. The Land Acquisition
                                                                  E
Officer passed an award fixing the market value of the
acquired irrigated land at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per acre,
and for the dry lands at the rate of Rs. 13,000/- per acre.
The reference court enhanced the compensation for dry
lands from Rs. 13,000/- to Rs. 31,5001- per acre and for the
irrigated lands from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 45, 900/- per acre.      F
The High Court enhanced the market value for the
irrigated lands at the rate of Rs. 75,600/- per acre and in
respect of dry lands at Rs. 38,000/- per acre. Therefore,
the appellants filed the instant appeals.
                                                                  G
    Dismissing the appeals, the Court

    HELD: 1. There is no reasonable ground to interfere
with the decisions of the High Court for fixing the market
                          1051                                    H
    1052     SUPREME COURT REPORT$            [2010) 11 S.C.R.


A value of sugarcane growing irrigated lands at Rs. 75,600/
  - per acre and at Rs. 38,000/- per acre for the dry lands.
  [Para 21) (1063-B]

         2.1 The documents filed on. benalf of the appellants
    to justify their claim at Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre, were not
8
    accepted by the High Court as the said lands covered by
    the sale deeds were lands which were situated at a
    distance of 2 to 3 kilometers from the acquired lands.
    There is no definite evidence to indicate the nature and
    quality of the said land, and hence, there is nothing on
C   record to show their comparability with the acquired
    lands. The High Court rightly kept the said sale deeds out
    of its consideration for lands situated about 2 to 3
    kilometers away, which could not be said to be
    comparable lands with that of the acquired lands. There
D   was no other direct documentary evidence which could
    prove and establish or act as a guide in determining the
    market value of the acquired lands. Therefore, the High
    Court fell back upon the capitalisation method of
    valuation for the acquired lands and in that process it
E   relied upon the extract of the Fully Revised Estimate of
    Area, Production and Average yield of Commercial Crops
    in Karnataka for 1995-96 published by the Directorate of
    Economics and Statistics which was the safe guide to
    determine the market value of the acquired lands on the
F   basis of capitalisation method. The High Court considered
    the said document and found that during 1995-96, the
    relevant year in which the notification for acquisition of
    the land in the instant case was issued, the average yield
    of sugarcane per hectare was 90 tonnes for the State of
G   Karnataka and the average yield per hectare for Bijapur
    District was 106 tonnes and, therefore, according to the
    Division Bench average .yield per acre was 36.422 tonnes
    [rounded off to 36 tonnes] for Karnataka and 42.89 tonnes
    for Bijapur District. The price of jaggery at the relevant
H
  HIRABAI & ORS. v. L.A.0. CUM ASST. COMMNR. 1053


time was Rs. 700/- per quintal and on the basis thereof       A
and after making calculation, the High Court came to the
finding that the market value on the basis of the
capitalisation method would come to Rs. 75,600/- for the
acquired sugarcane growing irrigated lands. [Paras 12,
13 and 14] [1058-G-H; 1059-A-G]                               B
      2.2 The certificate dated 24.02.1996 was shown to
have been issued by the Assistant Director of Agriculture.
It is not safe to rely on such a certificate, shown to have
been issued by a Government officer without the author
of the said certificate being produced for testing the        C
veracity of the certificate and the contents thereof and
also to show what is the method of calculation to arrive
at the said statistics. The said document was produced
by the appellants very casually and without there being
any further evidence in support of the said contents of       D
the certificate. (Para 17] (1061-A-B]
     2.3 The High Court was right in not accepting the
consent award because the same could not be said to
be binding on the parties hereto. Therefore, the~e was no     E
valid document in the instant case wherefrom it could
safely be deduced as to what could be the exact market
price of the land in question. There was no other option
but to fall back upon the capitalisation method of
valuation as there was no other safe and reliable
                                                              F
evidence available on record. While calculating market
value of the land on the basis of such capitalisation
method of valuation, the High Court relied on the
Government document published by the Directorate of
Economics and Statistics which pertains to year 1995-96.      G
According to the said document, average yield per acre
was 36.422 tonnes [rounded off to 36 tonnes] for
Karnataka and 42.89 tonnes for Bijapur District. The High
Court accepted the main statistics for arriving at the
market value of the land. On going through the format
and method of calculation as appearing in the judgment        H
    1054    SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [2010] 11 S.C.R.


A and order of the Division Bench of the High Court, there
  is no reason to interfere with the same as the said
  calculation is found to be just and appropriate. Without
  any disputing material on record, the deduction of 40 per
  cent towards cost of conversion of sugarcane into
B jaggery is accepted and if that is accepted, the remaining
  basis of the calculation is found to be appropriate, as
  even according to the appellants, 50 per cent could be
  deducted towards cost of cultivation. [Para 18) [1061-D-
  H; 1062-A-B]
c      2.4 While fixing the market value for the dry lands at
  Rs. 38,000/- per acre, the High Court relied upon the
  earlier decision of the Division Bench in respect of the
  land of the same village which was also acquired for the
  same purpose by the same notification. The said decision
D to fix the market value of the land at Rs. 38,000/- was
  arrived at on the ground that the market value of the
  irrigated lands would be taken as about one-and-a half
  times of the value of dry lands. After making 25%
  deduction from the market value fixed for the sugarcane
E growing rrrigated lands, the Division Bench of the High
  Court arrived at a finding that the market value of the
  other irrigated land would be around Rs. 57,000/-per acre,
  and consequent thereto, the High Court fixed the amount
  of Rs. 38,000/- per acre for the dry land taking notice of
F one and a half time calculation. The said calculation given
  by the High Court could not be assailed by giving any
  other justification. [Para 19) [1062-C-G]

       2.5 Once the findings of the Division Bench of the
G High Court to fix the market value of the sugarcane
  growing irrigated lands at Rs. 75,600/- per acre i~
  concurred with, necessarily, for the dry land the market
  value would be fixed at Rs. 38,000/- per acre, by following
  the criteria which is ordinarily accepted and followed and
  is also said to be rational. [Para 20) [1062-H; 1063-A]
H
  HIRABAI & ORS. v. L.A.O. CUM ASST. COMMNR.            1055


    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.              A
2042-2044 of 2004.

    From the Judgment and order daed 26.11.2002 of the
High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in MFA No. 2593, 2595
and 2587 of 2000.                                                B
                            WITH

Civil Appeal No. 2045-2052 of 2004

Civil Appeal No: 2053-2077 of 2004
                                                                 c
Civil Appeal No. 5900 of 2005

    Kiran Suri, S.J. Amith and Aparna for the Appellants.

    Ramesh K. Mishra and Sanjay R. Hegde for the
                                                                 0
Respondent.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. The applications
seeking for substitution of the legal representatives of the     E
deceased appellants pending consideration are allowed while
condoning delay, directing substitution of the names of the
legal representatives in place of deceased appellants. The
said applications are accordingly disposed of by this common
order.                                                           F

    2. Having passed an order for substitution of the legal
representatives in place of the deceased appellants, we now
proceed to dispose of all these appeals by this common
judgment and order as all these appeals are interconnected
and issues raised and urged are almost identical in nature.      G

      3. The Government of Karnataka issued a preliminary
notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 [for short "the Act"] proposing to acquire lands for the
Shima River Lift Irrigation Project which was published in the   H
    1056      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             (2010] 11 S.C.R.


A Government Gazette on 08.06.1995 by which the Government
  proposed to acquire lands belonging to the appellants herein.
  The lands proposed to be acquired consist of both irrigated
  and dry lands pertaining to Devangaon Village, Bijapur District.
  Subsequently, the State Government also issued declaration
B under Section 6 of the Act on 25.01.1996. Subsequent to the
  aforesaid issuance of notification under Section 4(1) followed
  by the notification under Section 6 of the Act, the Land
  Acquisition Officer passed an award on 14.12.1996 whereby
  he fixed the compensation and the market value of the acquired
c irrigated land at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per acre and for the
  dry lands at Rs. 13,000/- per acre.

        4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award, reference
  applications were filed by the claimant - appellants on the
  basis of which a reference was made to the reference court.
D Before the reference court parties adduced evidences both
  oral and documentary. At the conclusion of the trial, the
  reference court enhanced the compensation of dry lands from
  Rs. 13,000/- per acre to Rs. 31,500/- per acre by way of
  judgment and order dated 31.01.2000 and so far as the
E irrigated lands are concerned, the reference court by way of
  its judgments and orders dated 08.04.1999 and 13.12.1999
  enhanced the compensation of irrigated lands from Rs. 15,000/
  - per acre to Rs. 45,900/- per acre.

F      5. The claimants preferred appeals before the High Court
  of Karnataka and the High Court by the impugned judgments
  and orders enhanced the market value for the irrigated lands
  and determined the same at the rate of Rs. 75,600/- per acre .
  and in respect of dry lands the High Court determined the
G market value at Rs. 38,000/- per acre. Being aggrieved by the
  aforesaid judgments and orders passed by the High Court,
  the present appeals were filed in this Court, in which we have
  heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

        6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants
H
  HIRABAI & ORS. v. L.A.O. CUM ASST. COMMNR.                  1057
        [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

contended before us that the High Court was wrong in applying          A
the capitalisation method of valuation for calculating the market
value of both the categories of lands. In order to strengthen
her argument, she had extensively taken us through the
judgments and orders of the High Court, reference court and
also the other evidences on record.'                                   B

     7. The first submission which was advanced before us by
the counsel appearing for the appellants was that the High
Court was wrong to hold that appellants have restricted their
claims at Rs. 80,000/- per acre whereas it is shown from the
claim petition filed before the reference court that the claim C
was made at Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre, although, appellants
paid the court fee only at Rs. 80,000/- per acre for the lands
in question. Therefore, on this basis, we find that there was
nothing wrong on the part of the Division Bench of the High 1
Court mentioning that the prayer of the appellants was to fix· D
the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 80,000/- per acre.

      8. The next contention of the counsel appearing for the
appellants is that the High Court was unjustified to reject the
certificate dated 24.02.1996 [Exhibit P-71] issued by the              E
Assistant Director of Agriculture, Sindgi in respect of agricultural
land in Devangaon Area indicating a standard yield of
sugarcane as 60 tonnes per year per acre. She also submitted
that the market value of the irrigated lands in the present case
should be decided on the basis of a similar case in which Rs.          F
79,0001- was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer himself
for the sugarcane growing lands by way of a consent award
dated 20.10.1997 in respect of the lands which were acquired
under preliminary notification dated 08.08.1996 at Vadahalli
Village in Bagalkot Taluk. Relying on the same, the counsel for        G
the appellants submitted that even if the claim of the appellants
for fixing the market value of land at Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre
is not accepted by the court, the market value should be fixed
on the basis of the market value fixed for sugarcane growing
lands of Vadahalli Village in Bagalkot Taluk as per the award
                                                                       H
 ..        1058      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2010] 11 S.C.R.

 •
...    A of Land Acquisition Officer dated 20.10.1997 .

                9. Counsel appearing for the respondent, however,
           supported the impugned judgments and orders and relying on
           the same submitted that the said orders do not call for any
           interference by this Court.
       8
              10. In the present case we are concerned with the
         acquisition of irrigated lands and dry lands. By issuing the
         aforesaid preliminary notification issued under Section 4(1),
         lands of the appellants were acquired. Having carefully
       C scrutinized the judgment of the Division Bench of the High
         Court, we find that the High Court has examined the issue of
         determining fair and just market value of the lands from various
         angles.

       0       11. Appellants drew the attention of the High Court to a
         certified copy of the sale deed relating to sale of one acre of
         land in Sy. No. 109/2 [Exhibit P-26] of Kallahalli Village situated
         at a distance of 3 kilometers from the acquired lands. The
         said sale deed indicates that the aforesaid land was sold at
       E the rate of Rs. 75,000/- per acre on 05.07.1994 which is about
         one year prior to the date of the preliminary notification in the
         present case. The encumbrance certificate relating to Sy. No.
         1/5 of Kallahalli Village, which shows that the said land
         measuring 1 acre 25 guntas was sold for a consideration of
         Rs. 1, 15,000/- per acre and was marked as Ex. P-27, was
       F also produced before the High Court by the appellants.

               12. The aforesaid documents, filed on behalf of the
          appellants to justify their claim at Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre, were
          not accepted by the High Court as the aforesaid lands covered
      . G by the said sale deeds were lands which were situated at a
          distance of 2 to 3 kilometers from the acquired lands. There
          is no definite evidence to indicate the nature and quality of the
          said land, and hence there is nothing on record to show their
          comparability with the acquired lands. We are of the considered
        H opinion that the High Court rightly kept the said sale deeds out
  HI RABAi & ORS. v. L.A.O. CUM ASST. COMMNR.                1059
         [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

of its consideration for lands situated about 2 to 3 kilometers       A
away, which could not be said t6 be comparable lands with
that of the acquired lands. There was no other direct
documentary evidence which could prove and establish or act
as a guide in determining the market value of the acquired
lands. Therefore, the High Court fell back upon the                   B
capitalisation method of valuation for the acquired lands and
in that process it relied upon the extract of the Fully Revised
Estimate of Area, Production & Average yield of Commercial
Crops in Karnataka for 1995-96 published by the Directorate
of Economics and Statistics. According to the Division Bench          c
of the High Court the said document was the safe guide to
determine the market value of the acquired lands on the basis
of capitalisation method.

     13. The High Court considered the said document of
Directorate of Economics and Statistics and found therefrom           D
that during 1995-96, the relevant year in which the notification
for acquisition of the land in the present case was issued, the
average yield of sugarcane per hectare was 90 tonnes for the
State of Karnataka and the average yield per hectare for
Bijapur District was 106 tonnes and, therefore, according to          E
the Division Bench average yield per acre was 36.422 tonnes
[rounded off to 36 tonnes] for KArnataka and 42.89 tonnes for
Bijapur District.

     14. There was no dispute with regard to the fact that price      F
of jaggery at the relevant time was Rs. 700/- per quintal and
on the basis thereof and after making calculation, the High
Court came to the finding that the market value on the
capitalisation method would come to Rs. 75,600/- for the
acquired sugarcane growing irrigated lands. The calculations          G
on the basis of which the aforesaid figure was arrived at by
the High Court in its judgment are stated at para 18 which
reads as follows: -

    "18. . ............. It is well-settled and recognized that one
    ton of sugarcane will yield one quintal of jaggery. If Rs. 700/   H
    1060      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 11 S.C.R.


A       - is the price of jaggery per quintal, 40% has to be
        deducted towards cost of conversion of sugarcane into
        jaggery, overheads, profit of dealer, and transportation.
        The balance will be Rs. 420/-. Out of it, 50% will have to
        be deducted towards cost of cultivation. Therefore, net
B       realization will be Rs. 210/- per tonne of sugarcane. For
        36 tonnes the realization will be Rs. 7,560/-. Thus the value
        of net yield will be Rs. 7,560/-. Thus the value of net yield
        will be Rs. 7,560/- per acre after expenses. By applying
        the multiplier of 10, for capitalisation, the market value will
c       be Rs. 75,600/-."

       15. The aforesaid calculation made by the Division Bench
  of the High Court was challenged before us by the counsel
  appearing for the appellants contending inter a/ia that the
  aforesaid document on which reliance was placed by the High
D Court, although issued by a Government Department, the same
  should ·not have been accepted as it was not produced in the
  evidence. It was also submitted by her that reliance instead
  should have been placed on the certificate produced by her
  dated 24.02.1996 issued by the Assistant Director of ,
E Agriculture, Sindgi giving particulars of the yield in respect of ·
  the lands in Devangaon Village indicating standard yield of '
  sugarcane as 60 tonnes per year per acre. Relying on the
  said document, it was submitted by her that as one tonne of
  sugarcane could yield about a quintal of jaggery and hence
F the yield of jaggery would be 60 quintals of jaggery which is
  of the value of Rs. 42,000/- and if 50 % was deducted towards
  cost of cultivation, the net yield was Rs. 21,000/- and by
  capitalizing it with the multiplier factor of 10, the market value
  would be Rs. 2, 10,000/- per acre.
G
        16. When we consider the aforesaid submission in the
  light of the records we find that at least in two respects there
  is agreement between the parties, i.e., to the extent of sale
  price of jaggery being Rs. 700/- per quintal and that for
  capitalizing the market value the multiplying factor should be
H 10.
     HIRABAI & ORS. v. L.A.O. CUM ASST. COMMNR. 1061
           [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

        17. The aforesaid certificate dated 24.02.1996 was shown       A
  to have been issued by the Assistant Director of Agriculture,
  Sindgi but Assistant Director himself was not examined nor
  anybody from his office was examined to indicate as to under
  what circumstances the aforesaid certificate was issued and
  what is the basis of giving such a certificate and also to show      B
  what is the method of calculation to arrive at the aforesaid
  statistics. The said document was produced by the appellants
  very casually and without there being any further evidence in
  support of the aforesaid contents of the certificate. It is not
  safe to rely on such a certificate, shown to have been issued        c
  by a Government officer without the author of the said certificate
  being produced for testing the veracity of the certificate and
  the contents thereof.

         18. Reliance was also placed by the counsel appearing
   for the appellants on the consent award which however again         D
   was not accepted by the High Court and rightly so, we feel,
   because the same was a consent award which cannot be
   said to be binding on the parties hereto. Therefore, there was
   no valid document in the instant case wherefrom it can safely
   be deduced as to what the exact market price of the land in         E
   question could be. Therefore, there was no other option but to
   fall back upon the capitalisation method of valuation as there
   is no other safe and reliable evidence available on record.
   While calculating market value of the land on the basis of such
   capitalisation method of valuation, the High Court relied on the    F
   aforesaid Government document published by the Directorate
   of Economics and Statistics which was also pertaining to the
   relevant year in question, i.e., 1995-96. According to the said
   document which was accepted as a reliable document, average
   yield per acre was 36.422 tonnes [rounded off to 36 tonnes]         G
   for Karnataka and 42.89 tonnes for Bijapur District. The High
   Court accepted the main statistics for arriving at the market
   value of the land. On going through the format and method of
   calculation as appearing from paragraphs 16 and 18 of the
·· judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court,         H
    1062      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2010] 11 S.C.R.


A we do not find any reason to interfere with the same as the
  said calculation is found to be just and appropriate. Without
  any disputing material on record, we do not see as to why we
  should not accept the deduction of 40 per cent towards cost
  of conversion of sugarcane into jaggery and if that is accepted
B the remaining basis of the calculation is found to be appropri?1te,
  as even according to the appellants, 50 per cent could 'be
  deducted towards cost of cultivation which was also the
  submission of the counsel appearing for the appellant as
  appearing from paragraph 7 of the judgment itself.
c         19. Having decided thus, with regard to the determination
    of market value of the irrigated lands, we now focus our
    attention to the determination of the market value for the dry
    lands which was fixed by the High Court at Rs. 38,000/- per
    acre. There again, the High Court relied upon the earlier
D   decision of the Division Bench in respect of the land of the
    same village which was also acquired for the same purpose
    by the same notification. The aforesaid decision on which
    reliance was placed by the High Court in its judgment is also
    placed on record and on going through the same we find that
E   the aforesaid decision to fix the market value of the land at Rs.
    38,000/- was arrived at on the ground that the market value of
    the irrigated lands would be taken as about one-and-half times
    of the value of dry lands. After making 25% deduction from the
    market value fixed for the sugarcane growing irrigated lands,
F   the Division Bench of the High Court arrived at a finding that
    the market value of the other irrigated land would be around
    Rs. 57000/-per acre, and consequent thereto, the High Court
    fixed the amount of Rs. 38,000/- per acre for the dry land
    taking notice of one and half time calculation. The aforesaid
G   calculation given by the High Court could not be assailed by
    the counsel appearing for the appellants by giving any other
    justification.

        20. Once we have agreed with the findings of the Division
    Bench of the High Court to fix the market value of the sugarcane
H
  HIRABAI & ORS. v. L.A.O. CUM ASST. COMMNR.                 1063
        [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

growing irrigated lands at Rs. 75,600/- per acre, necessarily,        A
for the dry land the market value shall have to be held to be
fixed at Rs. 38,000/- per acre, by following the aforesaid criteria
which is ordinarily accepted and followed and also to be
rational.
                                                                      B
      21. In that view of the matter we do not find any reasonable
ground to interfere with the decisions of the High Court for
fixing the market value of sugarcane growing irrigated lands at
Rs. 75,600/- and at Rs. 38,000/- for the dry lands. We,
therefore, find no merit in these appeals which are dismissed,        C
but we leave the parties to bear their own costs.

N.J.                                        Appeals dismissed.