Supreme Court of India
NAVANATH & ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 523
- Decided
- 15 April 2009
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- S B SINHA
Holding
The Supreme Court restored the Reference Court’s award, holding that its factual findings on land classification and compensation, including for fruit‑bearing trees, based on the evidence, cannot be interfered with by the High Court on surmise or conjecture.
Summary
The Government of Maharashtra acquired 182 hectares of land for the Uthala Irrigation Project. The Special Land Acquisition Officer fixed market values and awarded additional compensation for fruit‑bearing trees, wells, pipelines and structures, classifying the land as Bagayat (irrigated) and Jirayat (non‑irrigated). The Reference Court, after hearing extensive evidence on land quality, irrigation facilities and tree holdings, upheld the award. The Bombay High Court re‑classified the land into four categories and set aside the Reference Court's award, holding that separate compensation for fruit‑bearing trees was impermissible and that the High Court relied on surmises. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the Reference Court’s findings, based on detailed evidence, could not be disturbed by the High Court on conjecture, that compensation for fruit‑bearing trees may be awarded separately where justified, and that valuation must consider all relevant factors. Consequently, the High Court’s order was set aside and the Reference Court’s award restored.
Issues considered
- The High Court may set aside the Reference Court’s findings on land classification and compensation based on surmise and conjecture.
- Whether compensation for fruit‑bearing trees can be awarded separately in addition to the market value of the land.
- Whether the method of valuation (comparable sale instances versus capitalization) is appropriate when fruit‑bearing trees are present.
- The burden of proof on the State to rebut claimants’ evidence on classification and valuation.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 11, s. 18, s. 23(2), s. 25, s. 4, s. 6
Subjects
Land acquisitionCompensationValuationFruit bearing treesLand classificationReference courtSection 18Section 23Section 25Comparable sale methodCapitalisation methodIrrigation projectEvidence assessmentSurmise and conjecture
Judgment
[2009) 6 S.C.R. 632
A NAVANATH & ORS.
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(Civil Appeal Nos. 92-105 of 2004)
APRIL 15, 2009
B
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] ..
Land Acquisition. Act, 1894: Compensation -
Determination of - Relevant factors - Held: For computation
C of compensation, large number of factors to be taken into
consideration, namely, nature and quality of land, whether
irrigated or unirrigated, facilities for irrigation like existence of
well etc., presence of fruit bearing trees, location of the land,
closeness to any road or highway, the evenness thereof,
o whether there exists any building or structure - Reference
court awarded compensation on the basis of classification of
lands as also on the ground that there were fruit bearing trees
thereon - Finding of fact arrived at by reference court was
interfered with by High Court on the surmises and conjectures
E - High Court's order set aside.
The Government of Maharashtra required lands in
question for "Uthala Irrigation Project". The Special Land
Acquisition Officer in his award fixed the market value of
the lands from Rs.1301- to Rs.230/- per Acre. In addition
F thereto, compensation was granted for fruit bearing trees,
wells, pipe lines, structures of cow-shed/Gotha and
Bandh etc. holding that some of the lands under
acquisition were Jirayat and some were Bagayat lands
but not notified as such. Relying on the revenue record
G for the last three years, it was held that though the lands
were shown as wetlands but they were in fact seasonally
irrigated, and hence could not be treated as bagayat
lands. The valuation of the said lands, therefore, was
H 632
NAVANATH & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 633
....,.
... made treating them as Jirayat lands. Statutory allowance A
was also granted as provided by Section 23(2) of the Land
Aquisition Act. Additional compensation @ 12% per
annum of the market value from the date of publication
of notification i.e., 28.10.1998 till the date of award, i.e.,
27.7.1990, was also granted. B
..... The Reference Court classified the lands principally ·
~
in two categories. It disagreed with the opinion of the
· Collector that only the entries made in the revenue
records of right particularly the registers 7 and 7/12 were
to be considered for determining the market value of the c
lands acquired opining that the land revenue assessment
is only one of the factors but t9gether therewith,
comparable sale instances, quality and fertility of the
lands acquired, their potential value, location, etc. were
also relevant. A sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare was fixed D
as market value for the Bagayat lands; Rs. 75,000/- per
hectare was determined for the Jirayat lands besides
other statutory dues. The entitlement for additional
amount of compensation towards the value of fruit
bearing trees was upheld. Reference Court also held that E
the existence of irrigation facility in the form of wells and
development of orchards on the acquired lands shows
,; )'-
that they had huge potential value and no evidence in
rebuttal was adduced by the respondents on this point.
F
The High Court allowed the appeals in part upon re-
classifying the entire land under acquisition into four
groups. It held that compensation granted separately for
the land as also on the basis of valuation of the fruit
bearing trees was impermissible; that when potential of
G
""'- land is taken into consideration, the irrigation facilities
available and crop pattern, the acceptable method of
'
fixing market value should be only comparable sales
instance. Aggrieved claimants filed these appeals.
Allowing the appeals, the Court H
634 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.
A HELD: 1.1. A large tract of lands situate in different
villages were acquired. Evidently, they belong to different
categories. Some of the lands were Pot - Kharab lands,
i.e., waste lands. A holder of a land has a statutory right
to ask the Collector by a written application that the
B matter be referred for determination of the court in regard
to amount of compensation in terms of Section 18 of the
Land Acquisition Act while taking objection to the amount ...
of compensation awarded by the Collector. The owner of
the land may raise various contentions including the
c measurement of the land, the amount of compensation,
the persons to whom it is payable, etc. For determination
of compensation, the applicant may Jurthermore raise
contentions as regards classification of land, non-grant
and/or inadequate grant of compensation under different
Heads, etc. The Reference Judge, thus, has a duty to
0
consider all such objections. For the said purpose,
opportunities !"'lust be given to the applicants to establish
that the findings arrived at by the Collector in his award
in respect of grant of compensation were based on a
wrong classification of land and/or ignoring the relevant
E materials therefor. [Paras 17 and 18] [648-D-H; 649-A-B]
1.2. At least in 108 cases, applicants examined
themselves. Their oral depositions as regards
· classification of land, the number and nature of fruit
F bearing trees, the age of the trees and other relevant
factors were brought on record. Apart from examining
the owners of the lands individually, common evidence
by examining a Horticulturist was adduced. The State,
however, did not examine any witness except Horticulture
G Inspector and Sub-Divisional Engineer. The Reference
Court gave detailed reasons as to why the amount of
compensation awarded by the Collector should be
enhanced having regard to the classification of lands as
also on the ground that there were fruit bearing trees
H thereupon. The Reference Judge found that in the matter
NAVANATH & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARf'.SHTRA 635
..,.
• of the number and nature of trees as also value thereof, A
there does not exist much difference between the opinion
. of the experts examined on behalf of appellants and
those examined on behalf of the State. [Paras 19 and 20]
[649-8-F]
B
2. The opinion of the High Court that saplings
varying from 1 to 3 years of age were available for
~
plantation from the Government as well as private
'" horticulture nurseries was based ·on surmises and
conjectures. The State did not raise such a contention,
nor any material for formation of such an opinion was c
brought on record. It was, therefore, impermissible to take
recourse to surmises and. conjectures that even the
agriculturist of a remote village whose lands were
acquired for undertaking an irrigation project, would take
recourse thereto. [Paras 23 and 25) [650-G-H; 351-A, 652- D
-F-G]
K.A.A. Raja & Ors. v. State of Kera/a & Anr. (1994) 5 SCC
138 andPeriyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State of
Kera/a (1991) 4 SCC 195, referred to. E
3. The Reference Judge determined the question in
regard to the classification of land on the basis of the
)'· evidences adduced before it by individual land owners.
-~
If the State was aggrieved thereby, it was bound to show
that the findings arrived at by the Reference Court was F
not sustainable having regard to the materials brought on
record. The finding of fact arrived at by the Reference
Judge on the basis of the materials brought on record,
could not be interfered with by the High Court on the
surmises and conjectures. Apart from the fact that the G
~
State did not examine any witness in support of its case,
no oral or documentary evidence other than the revenue
entries were adduced. Even the Horticulturist examined
on behalf of the State made its report in terms of the
guidelines issued by the State itself. It is one thing to say H
636 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.
A that any circular letter issued by the State allowing certain
..
I ..
guidelines are not applicable but it is another thing to say
that when the officers of the State themselves prepare a
report on the basis thereof, the High Court would interfere
therewith on certain assumptions. If the Reference Court
B considered the matters on case by case basis, the State
ought to have pointed out before the High Court as to on
what basis it intended to question the correctness of the ..
said finding. [Para 27) [653-B-G] I'-
P. Ram Reddy and Ors. v. Land Acquisition Officer,
c HyderabadUrban Development Authority, Hyderabad and
Ors. (1995) 2 SCC, 305 distinguished.
4.1. Determination of compensation of lands on the
basis of capitalization method in relation to fruit bearing
D trees is well known. Indisputably, valuation of agricultural
land on the one hand and valuation of orchard and forest
on the other would stand on different footings. Whereas
in the former case, the known legal principles particularly
with reference to the exemplars would be applied, in the
E latter a different principle, namely, multiplier of eight or
ten, as the case may be, on the basis of the multiplicand,
namely, yield from the trees or plantation would be
applicable. [Paras 29 and 32) [655-8-656-F-G] ... .. _
Kera/a State Electricity Board v. Livisha & Ors. (2007) 6
F SCC 792 State of J & K vs. Mohammad Mateen Wani & Ors.
(1998) 6 SCC 233 and Assistant Commissioner-cum-Land
Acquisition Officer, Bellary v. Sri S. T. Pompanna Setty (2005)
9 sec 662, relied on.
G State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and another etc. .k
(1995) Suppl. (2) SCC 637, referred to.
4.2. The market value of the land cannot be
determined both on the basis of sale instance as also on
capitalization method keeping in view the fact that it had
H
NAVANATH & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 637
~
~
fruit bearing trees. But, in this case, nothing was pointed A
-. out that the fruit bearing trees in large numbers were
existing in the agricultural land itself and the Reference
Court valued the same land by adopting two different
methods. Had such a position been existing, the Land
Acquisition Officer himself and/or the Horticulturist and B
the Consulting Engineer appointed on behalf of the State
... ,_., would not have taken recourse thereto. They are experts
in their own fields. The Land Acquisition Officer is
presumed to know the legal principles governing
valuation. Furthermore, recourse to the determination of c
amount of compensation of fruit bearing trees have been
taken keeping in view the guidelines issued by the State
itself. [Para 33] (657~8-E]
4.3. It is furthermore not a case where the same land
was valued twice once as an agricultural land and again D
as an orchard or forest When an orchard is acquired the
nature thereof can be found from the revenue records of
right and similarly when an agricultural land is acquired
the nature thereof can be ascertained from the revenue
records. If, however, on an agricultural or other E
categories of land including the other categories referred
to by the Reference Judge or by the High Court in which
r- J> ,._
a few trees stand, the question as regards the valuation
of the said trees as such must be ascertained for finding
out the actual market value of the land acquired. The F
Land Acquisition Collector and the Reference Judge
merely took recourse to the said procedure. A distinction
must further be borne in mind where common evidences
are adduced in respect of a large number of parties by
-
· both sides and, in particular, the principle of valuation G
~
having regard to the peculiar features of the village in
question and acquisition of land which belongs to one
or two persons and specific features of the land for the
said purpose may have to be taken into consideration.
[Para 34] [657-E-H; 658-A-B] H
638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.
A 5. Indisputably, for the purpose of computation of *
amount of compensation a large number of factors have
to be taken into consideration, namely, nature and quality
.-
of land, whether irrigated or unirrigated, facilities for
irrigation like existence of well etc., presence of fruit
8 bearing trees, the location of the land, closeness to any
road or highway, the evenness thereof whether there
exists any building or structure. [Para 35] [658-B~DJ
..,.
..
Union of India v. Ranchod AIR (2008) SC 938; relied on.
c Airports Authority of India v. Satyagopal Roy (2002) 3
sec 527, referred to.
6. The manner, in which the High· Court dealt with the
issue, cannot be appreciated. A court of law must base
D its decision on appreciation of evidence brought on
record by applying the correct legal principles. Surmises
and conjectures alone cannot form the basis of a
judgment. [Paras 36 and 37] [658-G-H; 659-A]
E
Case Law Reference:
(1994) 5 sec 138
(1991) 4 sec 195
referred to
referred to
Para 16
Para 16
-
(1995) 2 sec 305 distinguished Para 28
., .
F (2001) 6 sec 792 relied on Para 29
(1998) 6 sec 233 relied on Para 29
(1995) Suppl. 2 SCC 637 referred to Para 31
(2007) 6 sec 792
G
(2005) 9 sec 662
relied on
relied on
Para 32
Para 32
~
...
AIR (2008) SC 938 relied on Para 35
H
NAVANATH & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 639
(2002) 3 sec s21 referred to Para 36 A
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 92-
105 of 2004.
From the Judgment & Order dated 20/21.03.2003 of the
High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad in B
First Appeal No. 239, 270, 274, 278, 294, 299, 325, 338, 358,
_.. 367, 374, 382, 392 and 403 of 1997.
WITH
C.A. No. 106 of 2004, 107-113 of 2004, 114-118 of 2004, C
119 of 2004, 2591-2597 of 2009.
Shyam Divan, S.Udaya Kumar Sagar, Bina Madhavan, S. ·
Ravi Kumar and Rakesh Sinha for the Appellant.
D
Chinmoy Khaladkar, Sanjay Kharde, Asha G. Nair,
Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition E
(Civil) Nos 2804-2810 of 2004.
2. These appeals by special leave arise out of a common
judgment and order dated 20th/21st March, 2002 passed by a
Division Bench of the Bombay High Court allowing the appeals F
preferred by the State in part from a judgment and award dated
24.07.1995.
3. The Government of Maharashtra intended to undertake
construction of a medium irrigation project on the Uthala River .
at Patoda Taluka in the District of Beed commonly known as G
"Uthala Irrigation Project". For the said purpose, lands situated
at village Tagadgao were acquired. The total land sought to be
acquired measured 182 Hectares and belonged to 274
individual land owners. A notification under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act") was issued on H
640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.
A 6.10.1988. A declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made
on 6. 7.1989. An award was published on 29.06.1990.
4. The acquired lands were classified in two categories;
(1) Bagayat lands (irrigated lands); and (2) Jirayat lands (non-
B irrigated lands but are otherwise cultivable).
In these appeals, we are not concerned with the question
as regards classification of the acquired lands as also the ...
amount of compensation computed therefor. )-
C 5. Claimants - appellants, however, contend that the lands
had fruit bearing trees, wells, pipe lines, structures of cow-shed/
Gotha and Bandh etc. Indisputably, the Special Land
Acquisition Officer classified the said lands into following six
categories:
D
Group Total Total Area Total Pot Area Com pen
No. Survey Acquired -Kharab Cultivable -sation
Numbers Rate paid
under (per Are)
E Acquisition Hee. Are Hee. Are Hee. Are Rs.
I 8 36.24 0.89 35.35 130.00
II 19 -87.06 1.81 85.25 150.00
Ill 13 47.71 0.82 46.89 170.00
IV 4 10.36 - 10.36 190.00
F
v - - - - -
VI 2 1.13 - 1.13 230.00
Total 46 182.50 3.52 178.98
G 6. The Special Land Acquisition Officer in his award fixed
the market value of the said lands from Rs.130/- to Rs.230/-
per Acre. In addition thereto, however, compensation was, inter
alia, granted for fruit bearing trees, wells, pipe lines, structures
of cow-shed/Gotha and Bandh etc. inter alia holding that some
H of the lands under acquisition were Jirayat and some were
--<:
NAVANATH & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 641
- ~
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
Bagayat lands but no~ notified as such. Most of the lands having A
dry cultivation are found to be of medium to superior quality.
Relying on the 7/12 extract entered in the revenue record for
the last three years, it was held that though the lands had been
shown as wetlands but they are in fact seasonally irrigated, and
hence cannot be treated as bagayat lands. The valuation of the B
said lands, therefore, was made treating them as Jirayat lands.
Statutory allowance at .the rate of 30% over the amount of
...
_., compensation was also granted as provided by Section 23(2)
of the Act. Additional compensation at the rate of 12 per
centum per annum of the market value from the date of c
·~
publication of notification i.e., 28.10.1998 till the date of award,
i.e., 27.7.1990, was also granted.
7. Reference in terms of Section 18 of the Act was made
by the Collector at the instance of appellants herein to the
Reference Court. D
"" Dr. Mukund Ramrao Gaikwad (PW2) was examined. He
was a Horticulturist. Appellants also examined one Ramhair
Bayaji Ghodake (PW3) a Consulting Engineer.
> E
4 The State on its behalf examined Ramkrishna Ganpatrao
Chaudhari, Horticulture Inspector working in the Office of the
Deputy Director of Horticulture, Sangli and Kisan Amrutrao
.. ~
Widekar, sub-Divisional Engineer in the office of Executive
Engineer, Aurangabad Irrigation Division on its behalf.
F
8. The Reference Judge examined all the matters referred
to him on a case by case basis. Indisputably, out of 182
reference cases, in 108 matters witnesses were examined and
documents were proved. However, in 74 matters neither any
witness was examined nor any document was proved. G
.~·
J
9. The Reference Court classified the lands principally in
two categories. It disagreed with the opinion of the Land
Acquisition Collector that only the entries made in the revenue
records of right particularly the registers 7 and 7/12 were to be H
642 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.
A considered for the purpose of determining the market value of
the lands acquired opining that the land revenue assessment
only is one of the factors but together therewith, comparable
sale instances, quality and fertility of the lands acquired, their
potential value, location, etc. were also relevant.
B
10. Upon considering the materials brought on record by
the parties and having regard to the depositions of witnesses ...
with regard to the quality of the soil, the potential value of the
lands, nature of cultivation, i.e., Whether they were Bagayat or
C Jirayat, the nature of crops raised therein, i.e. like Sugarcane,
Groundnut, Tamarind, Chilly, Cotton, Wheat, etc.; whereas a
sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- per hectare was fixed as market value
for the Bagayat lands;. a sum of Rs. 75,000/- per hectare was
determined for the Jirayat lands besides other statutory dues.
D 11. The learned Reference Judge in its judgment,
furthermore, considered the question as to whether the
appellants were entitled to additional amount of compensation
towards the value of fruit bearing trees or not holding that
different varieties thereof like Mango, Lemon, Guava,
E Pomegranate, Coconut, Custard apple, Borr Mosumbi, etc. had
also been standing on the said lands at the time of their
acquisition and having regard to the fact that no evidence was
adduced rebutting the same on behalf of the State, awards on
that basis were passed.
F 12. As regards the potentiality and fertility of lands, the
learned Reference Court held that the existence of irrigation
facility in the form of wells and development of orchards on the
acquired lands shows that they had huge potential value and
no evidence in rebuttal was adduced by the respondents on this
G point.
It was furthermore held that sale instances from Village
Tagadgaon itself and the sale instances in respect of the lands
situated in the vicinity of the acquired lands, which took place
H
NAVANATH & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 643
- [S.8. SINHA, J.)
on or about the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, A
can be considered as comparable sale instances for arriving
at adequate market value of the acquired lands.
As regards Bagayat and Jirayat lands, the learned judge
held the sale instance dated 25.4.1985 having been executed 8
three years prior to the date of publication may also be taken
into consideration in terms whereof the Bagayat land was sold
at Rs.1200/- per Are. Similarly, sale instances dated 3.9.1983
executed three to five years prior to the date of publication was
also taken into account whereby Bagayat Land was sold at C
Rs. 750/- per Are. Considering the above two sale instances,
the learned Reference Court awarded Rs.1000/- per Are for
Bagayat Land. The post sale instances dated .18.8.1990 and
1.4.1993 were moreover taken into account for fixing the market
value for Jirayat Lands, in terms whereof said lands were sold
at the rate of Rs.1375/- per Are and Rs.1562/- per Are. The D
learned Reference Judge fixed the market value for Jirayat
Lands at the rate of Rs. 750/- per Are. It was also noticed that
the possession was taken on 1.8.1990.
As regards fruit bearing trees, it held that no reliance can E
be made either on the evidence adduced by the Respondents
or claimants. It was observed that as it is difficult to arrive at
exact figure of damages, some guess work was necessary. The
valuation report was prepared as per the Guidelines issued by
the department. It was furthermore held that unless exact age F
of the trees as well as their fruit bearing capacity was
ascertained, it was not possible to fix the exact value of the
damages with regard thereto. ,
13. The State preferred an appeal thereagainst before the
High Court questioning the correctness of the said award of the G
Reference Court, inter alia, on the following grounds:
i. The sale instances relied upon by the Land
Acquisition Collector being genuine and
comparable; the Reference Court was not justified H
644 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.
.......
~
A in discarding the same.
ii. The sale instances which were being relied upon
by the Reference Court involved transactions
between two real brothers and therefore not
B genuine.
iii. No additional amount of compensation for the fruit ...
bearing trees and for building of 'Bundhs' etc. could ~
be awarded because the amount of compensation
was determined on the basis that the nature of the
c lands was Bagayat.
14. By reason of the impugned judgment and order, the
High Court allowed the said appeals in part upon re-classifying
the entire land under acquisition into four groups, namely, (i)
D Pot-Kharab land; (ii) dry land under cultivation; (iii) land under
seasonal irrigation; and (iv) land under perennial irrigation.
On the basis of the aforementioned sub-classification, the
market value was determined at (i) for perennially irrigated land
at Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare; (ii) for dry land at Rs.50,000/- per
E hectare, (iii) for land under seasonal irrigation at Rs. 75,000/-
per hectare and (iv) for Pot-Kharab land at Rs.10,000/- per
hectare.
-...
In support of the said conclusion, the learned judge "'
F opined:-
i. both the parties agree that the comparable sales
instances method of valuation as adopted by the
Reference Court has been rightly adopted.
G ii. 7/12 extracts show the cultivation in different ~
seasons, plantation of fruit bearing trees as well as
the seasonal and perennial nature of irrigation
available either by well water or by lift irrigation.
H iii. The Land Acquisition Collector had set out in the
NAVANATH & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 645
......,_,. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
award E-Statement of three types of lands viz. dry, A
seasonally irrigated and perennially irrigated lands.
In addition, number of fruit bearing trees had been
counted which was not disputed.
iv. Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation for
B
the fruit bearing trees on the basis of capitalization
.. 4
method in addition to the market value of the land .
The Reference Court had also done the same thing
on the basis of evidence of Expert.
V. Compensation granted separately for the land as c
also on the basis of valuation of the fruit bearing
trees is impermissible in law.
vi. When the potential of the land is taken into
consideration the irrigation facilities available and D
the crop pattern, the acceptable method of fixing
market value should be only comparable sale
instances.
vii. Plantation of fruit bearing trees having commenced
from the year 1986-1987, no compensation was E
payable thereto.
viii. When the Section 4(1) Notification was issued the
"'~ trees planted were of the age of two to three years
and, thus, possibility of obtaining undue advantage F
therefor by the land-owners by planting trees cannot
be ruled out.
ix. Acquired lands should be reclassified into four
groups.
G
"- x. Reference Court while fixing the market value of the
Bagayat Land at Rs.1,00,000/- per Hectare wrongly
decided the market value of Jirayat Land at
Rs.75,000/-, and reduced the value of Jirayat Land
at Rs.50,000/- per hectare. H
646 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.
_,.
~
A xi. The Land Acquisition Officer did not step into the
/
witness box and none of the sale instances relied
on by the State was brought on record.
xii. It is appropriate to hold that the perennially irrigated
land could be valued at Rs.1,00,000/-.
B
xiii. No additional compensation is payable for well, fruit
bearing trees and the pipe line etc.
,. •
xiv. The claimants would be entitled for loss of structure
c like cow shed or storage facility and compensation
for the big trees like tamarind, Mango and Neem
Trees on the basis of the value of the timber wood
or fire wood, as the case may be.
XV. The Correct value for the timber wood for these
D trees could be fixed at Rs.500/- for Babool, Neem
and Tamarind trees. So far as the Mango trees are
concerned, the value of fire wood would be Rs.200/
~ per each tree.
E xvi. No extra compensation is payable on account of
fire wood or timber wood in respect of fruit bearing
trees.
xvii. Compensation for structures like Cow-shed/Gothas ~ ...
be paid as per the Report at Ex.96 made by Kisan
F
Amrutrao Wadekar (Horticulturist Inspector).
Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment, appellants are before us.
G 15. Mr. Shyam Divan, learned Senior Counsel appearing
on behalf of appellants would contend: )
i. The State could not have questioned the.
classification of land or valuation of the fruit bearing
trees in view of the award made by the Land
H
NAVANATH & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 647
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
Acquisition Collector. A
ii. In view of the findings of fact arrived at by the High
Court itself though the sale instances· brought on
record by appellants before the Reference Court
were genuine and there was no evidence brought
8
on record by the respondent- State to rebut the
same, it must be held to have committed a serious
error in passing the impugned judgment.
iii. The High Court committed a serious error in re-
classifying the acquired lands into four categories C
although no material had been brought on record
contradicting the evidence adduced on behalf of
appellants.
iv. The State, having accepted the amount of
0
compensation at the rate of Rs. 75,000/- per hectare
in respect of land of an adjoining village, namely,
Padali, could not be permitted to question the rate
of compensation awarded in respect of the Jirayat
land situated in the village in question, namely, E.
Tagadgao.
v. The High Court furthermore committed a serious
error in interfering with the amount of compensation
awarded by the Reference Court in respect of fruit
bearing trees, well, pipe, lines, structures of cow- F
shed/Gotha arid Bandh etc.
16. Mr. Chinmoy Khaladkar, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, would contend:
i. The Special Land Acquisition Officer having G
proceeded to classify the land as also the amount
of compensation payable in respect of the trees on
the basis of the revenue records and in particular
7/12 extracts, the impugned judgment is
unassailable. H
648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 6 S.C.R.
r•
~
A ii. The High Court cannot be said to have committed
any error in holding that a survey was conducted
prior to issuance of the notification under Section
4 of the Act, it can be presumed that the land
owners planted fruit bearing trees for obtaining
B higher amount of compensation as has been
observed by this Court in KA.A. Raja & Ors. vs.
State of Kera/a & Anr. [(1994) 5 SCC 138). •
-+.
iii. Amount of compensation cannot be determined for
the land both on the basis of its classification as also
c on the basis of fruit bearing trees separately.
iv. The Land Acquisition Officer· having considered the
7/12 extracts for determining the age of the trees,
the Reference Court committed a serious illegality
D in interfering therewith.
17. The purpose for which the lands have been acquired
is not in dispute. We have noticed hereinbefore that a large
tract of lands situate in different villages were acquired.
Evidently, they belong to different categories. Some of the
E
lands were Pot - Kharab lands, i.e., waste lands.
A holder of a land has a statutory right to ask the Collector
by a written application that the matter be referred for ., ...
determination of the court in regard to amount of compensation
F in terms of Section 18 of the Act while taking objection to the
amount of compensation awarded by the Collector. The owner
of the land may raise various contentions including the
measurement of the land, the amount of compensation, the
persons to whom it is payable, etc.
G
For the purpose of getting the amount of compensation
determined, the applicant may furthermore raise contentions as
regards classification of land, non-grant of compensation under
different heads, non-grant and/or inadequate grant of
compensation under different Heads, etc.
H
NAVANATH & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 649
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
;.·~
-it 18. The Reference Judge, thus, has a duty to consider all A
such objections. For the said purpose, opportunities must be
given to the applicants to establish that the findings arrived at
by the Collector in his award in respect of grant of
compensation-were based on a wrong classification of land
and/or ignoring the relevant materials therefor. B
I
19. At least in 108 cases, applicants examined
...F:...,_~
..., themselves. Their oral depositions as regards classification of
land, the number and nature of fruit bearing trees, the age of
the trees and other relevant factors were brought on record.
Apart from examining the owners of the lands individually,
c
common evidence by examining a Horticulturist, namely, Dr.
Mukund Ramrao Gaikwad and a Consulting Engineer, namely,
Ramhair Bayaji Ghodake was adduced.
20. The State, however, did not examine any witness D
except one Ramkrishna Ganpatrao Chaudhari, Horticulture
Inspector and one Kisan Amrutrao Widekar, Sub-Divisional
Engineer.
The Reference Court gave detailed reasons as to why the E
amount of compensation awarded by the Collector should be
enhanced having regard to the classification of lands as also
on the ground that there were fruit bearing trees thereupon. The
learned Reference Judge found that in the matter of the number
~·,,..
and nature of trees as also value thereof, there does not exist
F
much differe·nce between the opinion of the experts examined
on behalf of appellants and those examined on behalf of the
State.
21. The High Court, however, while accepting that there
were comparable sale instances and as regards the quality of G
• the land, crops pattern and the irrigation facilities as well as the
development of orchards/sericulture, observed:
"They show the cultivation in different seasons, plantation
of fruit bearing trees as well as the seasonal and perennial H
-1
650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.
~~
A nature of irrigation available either by well water or by lift +
irrigation. The cultivation pattern of different crops has not
been seriously disputed and they are Jowar, Bajari,
Onions, wheat, sunflower, turmeric and sugarcane (though
in selected few cases). So far as the fruit trees are
B concerned, undoubtedly there are some claims which
involved the trees like tamarind and mangos which have
grown on their own but there are some orchards which
were developed and they contained the trees like mangos, ~
. '
pomegranates, Guava, Paper Lemon and Sweet Lime.
c Out of these fruits, it is of common knowledge that only the
plantation of sweet lime trees may require irrigation facility
round the years, whereas all other fruits, including chikoo
fruit trees, do not require such round the year irrigation
facility. Similarly, amongst the crops it is only sugarcane
which requires irrigation facility round the year. Even if there
D
is water source available by way of a well in a particular
land, it could be a source of irrigation seasonally and there
is no guarantee that it could be a perennial source of
income."
E 22. The High Court despite noticing that the Land
Acquisition Officer had also granted compensation on the
market value as also separate compensation for the fruit
bearing trees on the basis of the valuation made by the
Horticulture Inspector, opined that compensation granted ""'
...
F separately for the land and valuation of the fruit bearing trees
is impermissible in law. The High Court, however, accepted that
while the award of the Reference Court can be set aside having
regard to the provisions contained in Section 25 of the Act, the
amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition
G Officer in terms of Section 11 of the Act should not have been
interfered with. J.
23. The opinion of the High Court that saplings varying from
1 to 3 years of age are available for plantation from the
Government as well as private horticulture nurseries is based
H
NAVANATH & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 651
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
"~
1- on surmises and conjectures. The State does not appear to A
have raised such a contention, nor any material for formation
of such an opinion was brought on record.
24. In. certain cases, the conduct of a person claiming
higher amount of compensation by taking recourse to certain
B
acts to show development of the lands for obtaining better
compensation may be a subject matter of the judicial notice as
has been done by this Court in K.A.A. Raja (supra), but even
... therein some materials were available for arriving at a
conclusion as would appear from the following observation:
c
"This case itself establishes from the record that, but for
the report of the Forest Officer, the report given by the
Subordinate Officers of the Revenue Department would
have persuaded the courts to accept the report of the
Revenue Officers that the plantation was maintained of D
high standards and in good conditions which was belied
by the report of the Forest officials, as accepted by the
High Court. Therefore, it would be necessary in every case
to place a correct report before the reference court the true
state of affairs regarding the number of trees, their ages, E
their yield, in particular where capitalisation method is to
be adopted to determine the market value of the acquired
land."
-;..
>•
It is on the aforementioned premise, this Court opined that
it would be necessary in every case to place a correct report F
before the Reference Court, the true state of affairs regarding
the number of trees, their age, yield, in particular where
capitalization method is to be adopted to determine the market
value of the acquired land. Relying upon its earlier decision in
Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. vs. State of Kerala G
•• [(1991) 4 sec 195] it was held:-
"In Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State of
Kerala [(1991) 4 SCC 195] this court held that~t is the duty
of the court to determine just and fair market value and the H
652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.
~ ..
A conduct of the Land Acquisition Court or officer in that ~
behalf, if found to be a misconduct the officer was
amenable to disciplinary proceedings for misconduct. That
apart the claimants should produce necessary evidence
on the value of land since the burden of proof is on them
B to establish the higher compensation claimed. Equally the
Officer-in-Charge has responsibility and duty to place all
material and relevant evidence in rebuttal of the enhanced
claim. As a part thereof the condition _of the trees, the ages
-1.
of the trees their number and the total yield derived from
c the trees being material and relevant facts to adjudge not
only the value of the produce, but also to apply suitable
multiplier to determine the market value as compensation.
The court equally has duty, on an overall consideration of
the facts and circumstances available in the particular case
on hand, while determining the number of trees, their ages,
D
the yield and the price fetched or likely to fetch in the open
market should apply appropriate multiplier in determining
the market value of the grove or plantation etc. In any case
for want of appropriate evidence as to multiplier adduced
by either party, we take seven years' multiplier for purpose
E of capitalisation of net income, though income may vary
depending on evidence.
25. Each case, however, must be considered on its own
facts. Whereas in KA.A. Raja (supra) a proposal was made ~ ..... __
F to acquire 52.88 acres of cardamom plantation, in Periyar and
Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. (supra), the proposal was to acquire
land where rubber trees were grown. It is, therefore, in our
opinion, impermissible to take recourse to surmises and
conjectures across the board that even the agriculturist of a
G remote village whose lands are being acquired for undertaking
an irrigation project, would take recourse thereto. ~
26. No rule in absolute terms, in our opinion, can be laid
down therefor. In the instant case, the learned Reference Judge
had made a scrupulous enquiry in regard to each and every
H (.
NAVANATH & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 653
,,.,_ [S.B. SINHA, J.]
,....
claim. It had taken into consideration the evidences adduced A
on behalf of both the parties not only with regard to the
classification of the land but also the number of trees, their age,
the quality, etc.
27. We may notice that the learned Reference Judge B
determined the question in regard to the classification of land
on the basis of the evidences adduced before it by individual
--- ~
land owners; by way of examplE:l, .having regard to the fact that
claimants had failed to prove that the land had any irrigational
facility, the learned Reference Judge classified the lands as
Jirayat lands. If the State was aggrieved thereby, it was bound
c
to show that the findings arrived at by the Reference Court is
no~ sustainable having regard to the materials brought on
record. The finding of fact arrived at by the learned Reference
Judge on the basis of the materials brought on record, in our
opinion, could not have been interfered with by the High Court D
on the surmises and conjectures. Apart from the fact that the
State had not examined any witness in support of its case, no
oral or documentary evidence other than the revenue entries
was adduced. We may notice that even the Horticulturist
examined on behalf qf the State made its report in terms of the E
guidelines issued by the State.itself.
It is one thing to say that any circular letter issued by the
.-~ State allowing certain guidelines are not applicable but it is
another thing to say that when the officers of the State F
themselves prepare a report on the basis thereof, the High
Court would interfere therewith on certain assumptions. In short,
if the Reference Court had considered the matters on case by
case basis, the State should have pointed out before the High
Court as to on what basis it intended to question the correctness
G
+ of the said finding.
28. Relia.nce has been placed by Mr. Khaladkar on P.
Ram Reddy and Ors. vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad
Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad and Ors. [(1995)
2 sec 305], wherein one of the questions formulated was the H
654 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.
~·
~
A effect of non-cross-examination or ineffective cross-examination
of witnesses for the claimant. It was held:
"It is, no doubt true, that whenever oral evidence is
adduced by parties on certain matters in controversy, it
B may become difficult for Court to overlook such evidence,
if it is not shown by effective cross-examination of such
witnesses who have given such evidence or by adducing
contra-evidence that the oral evidence was unreliable or
...
-t
the witnesses themselves are not credit worthy. But, in land
acquisition references before Civil Courts, when witnesses
c give oral evidence in support of the claims of claimants for
higher compensation the in-effective cross-examination of
such witness, is riot an uncommon feature if regard is had
to the manner in which claims for enhanced compensation
in land acquisition cases are defended in courts on behalf
D of the Stale, Indeed, when a question arose before this
Court whether the Court is bound to accept the statement
of witnesses only because they have not been effectively
cross-examined or evidence in rebuttal has not been
adduce, it was observed by this Court in Chaturbhuj
E Pande and Ors. vs. Collector; Raigarh AIR (1969) S.C.
255, thus:
'It is true that the witnesses examined on behalf of
the appellants have not been effectively cross- -<! ~
F examined. It is also true that the Collector had not
adduced any evidence in rebuttal; but that does not
mean that the court is bound to accept their
evidence. The Judges are not computers ...... they
are bound to call into aid their experience of life and
test the evidence on the basis of probabilities.'"
G
+
The said decision would not, however, apply in cases
where not only there had been effective cross examination but
also where evidence had been adduced in rebuttal of the
evidences adduced by the claimant. It is furthermore not a case
H
f,,..,.
NAVANATH & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 655
,,._ [S.B. SINHA, J.]
...
that there had been no effective cross. examination of the A
witnesses and in fact no such ground had been taken before
the High Court. The High Court has also not arrived at such a
finding. We, therefore, fail to appreciate as to why the said
decision has been relied upon.
B
29. Determination of compensation of lands on the basis
of capitalization method in relation to fruit bearing trees is well
.._
known. It has been so held in Kera/a State Electricity Board
~
vs. Livisha & ors. ((2007) 6 sec 792], stating:-
"11. So far as the compensation in relation to fruit bearing c
trees are concerned the same would also depend upon
the facts and circumStances of each case. We may,
incidentally, refer to a recent decision of ttiis Court in Land
Acquisition Officer, v. Kamandana Ramakrishna Rao
((2007) 3 sec 526] wherein claim on yield basis has been D
held to be relevant for determining the amount of
'"" compensation payable under the Land Acquisition Act,
same principle has been reiterated in Kapur Singh Mistry
v. Financial Commission and Revenue Secretary to
Govt. of Punjab and Ors. 1995 Supp. (2) SCC 635, State E
of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. 1995 Supp. (2)
SCC 637, para 4, and Airports Authority of India v.
Satyagopa/ Roy (2002) 3 SCC 527. In Airport Authority
.. ,... (Supra), it was held: (SCC p.533 para 14)
'14. Hence, in our view, there was no reason for the F
High Court not to follow the decision rendered by
this Court in Gurucharan Singh's case and
determine the compensation payable to the
respondents on the basis of the yield from the trees
.. by applying 8 years' multiplier. In this view of the
matter, in our view, the High Court committed error
G
apparent in awarding compensation adopting the
multiplier of 18.'
I
H
656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.
A In State of J & K vs. Mohammad Mateen Wani & ors.
[(1998) 6 sec 233], it was categorically held:
"10. As regards the compensation in respect of fruit
bearing trees and tubewells the High Court had
relied upon the Government circular which allows
B
compensation in respect of fruit bearing trees and
tubewell separately. Nothing contrary has been
brought to our notice and, therefore, we do not think -;_ '"'
it proper to disturb the said finding."
c 30. It is of some significance to notice that the
'Horticulturist' examined on behalf of the State itself had referred
to the table which is considered to be an authority for the
purpose of aetermining the compensation payable in respect
of the fruit bearing trees.
D
Not only the authority of the said table has been resorted
by the Horticulturist examined on behalf of the State but also "'
acknowledged by the Horticulturist examined on behalf of
appellants.
E 31. Our attention, however, has been drawn to a decision
of this Court in State of Haryana vs. Gurcharan Singh and
another etc. [1995 Suppl. (2) SCC 637] by Mr. Khaladkar to
contend that the determination of compensation for land on the
basis of its valuation and again on the basis of the fruit bearing ~---
F trees should not be done separately.
32. Indisputably, valuation of agricultural land on the one
hand and valuation of orchard and forest on the other would
stand on different footings. Whereas in the former case, the
G known legal principles particularly with reference to the
exemplars will have to be applied, in the latter a different +
principle, namely, multiplier of eight or ten, as the case may be,
on the basis of the multiplicand, namely, yield from the trees or
plantation would be applicable. [See Kera/a State Electricity
Board VS. Livisha & ors. (2007) 6 SCC 792, where multiplier
H
NAVANATH & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 657
~- [S.B. SINHA, J.]
~
of eight was used and Assistant Commissioner-cum-Land A
Acquisition Officer, Bellary vs. Sri S. T. Pompanna Setty
((2005) 9 sec 662) where multiplier of ten was used]
In some decisions of this Court even higher multiplier was
used. B
33: The legal principle laid down in this behalf in a catena
-- ct of decisions of this Court is that the market value of the land
cannot be determined both on the basis of sale instance as also
on capitalization method keeping in view the fact that it had fruit
bearing trees. But, in this case, nothing has been pointed out c
before us that the fruit bearing trees in large numbers were
existing in the agricultural land itself and the Reference Court
had valued the same land by adoptirig two different methods.
Had such a position been existing, the Land Acquisition Officer
... himself and/or the Horticulturist and the Consulting Engineer D
appointed on behalf of the State would not have taken recourse
thereto. They are experts in their own fields. The Land
Acquisition Officer is presumed to know the legal principles
governing valuation. Furthermore, as noticed hereinbefore,
recourse to the determination of amount of compensation of fruit E
· bearing trees have been taken keeping in view the guidelines
issued by the State itself.
.. ..
, 34. It is furthermore not a case where the same land has
been valued twice once as an agricultural land and again as
F
an orchard or forest. When an orchard is acquired the nature
thereof can be found from the revenue records of right and
similarly when an agricultural land is acquired the nature thereof
can be ascertained from the revenue records. If, however, on
an agricultural or other categories of land including the other
+- ' · categories referred to by the Reference Judge or by the High G
Court in which a few trees stand, the question as regards the
valuation of the said trees as such must be ascertained for the
purpose of finding out the actual market value of the land
H
658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.
A acquired. The Land Acquisition Collector and the learned
-·
-4
Reference Judge had merely taken recourse to the said
procedure. A distinction must further be borne in mind where
common evidences are adduced in respect of a large number
of parties by both sides and, in particular, the principle of
B valuation having regard to the peculiar features of the village
in question and acquisition of land which belongs to one or two
persons and specific features of the land for the said purpose ...
may have to be taken into .consideration. +
35. Indisputably, for the purpose of computation of amount
c of compensation a large number of factors have to be taken
into consideration, namely, nature and quality of land, whether
irrigated or unirrigated, facilities for irrigation like exist~nce of
well etc., presence of fruit bearing trees, the location of the land,
closeness to any road or highway, the evenness thereof
D whether there exists any building or structure. [See Union of
India vs. Ranchod (AIR 2008 SC 938).
..
36. Recently, in Kera/a State Electricity Board (supra), this
Court held that so far as the compensation in relation to fruit
E bearing trees are concerned, the same would also depend
upon the facts and circumstances of each case; in support
whereof it, inter alia, noticed the decision of this Court in
Airports Authority of India vs. Satyagopa/ Roy [(2002) 3 SCC
527], wherein it was stated:
...
F "Hence, in our view, there was no reason for the High Court
not to follow the decision rendered by this Court in
Gurcharan Singh case and determine the compensation
payable to the respondents on the basis of the yield from
the trees by applying 8 years' multiplier. In this view of the
G matter, in our view, the High Court committed error +
apparent in awarding compensation adopting the multiplier
of 18."
The manner, in which the High Court has dealt with the
H issue, in our opinion, cannot be appreciated.
~·
NAVANATH & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 659
.,,
..._ [S.B. SINHA, J.]
.>-
37. A court of law must base its decision on appreciation A
of evidence brought on record by applying the correct legal
principles. Surmises and conjectures alone cannot form the
basis of a judgment.
~
38. We, for the foregoing reasons, are not in a position to B
agree with the judgment of the High Court. It is set aside
- +
accordingly and that of the Reference Court restored. The
Appeals are allowed with costs. Counsel's fee assessed at
Rs.25,000/-.
D.G. Appeals, allowed. c
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Land acquisition"Sign in to search