STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.versusRAMA RANA AND ORS.

A                  THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.
                                        v.
                           RAMA RANA AND ORS.                                     [
                             DECEMBER 13, 1996

B               [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.]

          Land Acquisition Ac~ 1894: Sections 4( 1), 18 and 23.

         Land Acquisition-Compensation-Principle for determination
C of-Land acquired for irrigation scheme-compensation awarded for dry
  crops land, inigated lands and waste lan~As there were no sale deeds
  exhibited for detennination of compensation Reference Court relied on oral
  evidence and detennined the compensation on basis of yiel~Accordingly it
  determined the market value after deducting 1/3 towards prices at Rs. 325 per
  acre-High Court confinned the same-Appeal-Held expenditure is involved
D in raising and harvesting the crops and 011 an average 50% of the value of
  the crop ralised goes towards cultivation expenses-Therefore, deduction of
  I/3rd was not comet in detennining the compensation of the lands on the
  basis of yield-Neither claimants nor Government took steps to produce best
  evidence-But oral evidence of witnesses cannot be ·rejected on that ground
E alone-court has statutory duty to the society to subject the oral evidence to
  great scmtiny-Multiplier of JO years should be applied and deduction of 50%
  towards cultivation expenses should be made-claimants held entitled to
  solatium and interest.

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 16945-64
F   of 1996.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 22.9.95 of the Gujarat High
    Court in F.A. No. 2530-49 of 1995.
                                                                                  /   .
       Yashank Adhyaru, Ms. S. Hazarika and            Mrs. H. Wahi for the
G Appellants.
          P.S. Rao, Ms. Deepa and P.H. Parekh for the Respondents.

          The following Order of the Court was delivered :

H          Delay condoned. Leave granted.
                                      102
                                STAIB v. RAMARANA                               103

             We have heard learned counsel on both sides. These appeals by             A
       special leave arise from the judgment of the Gujarat High Court, made on
       September 22, 1995 in P.A. Nos. 2532- 2549/95.
-..
              A total extent of 68 hectares 62.5 sq. mts. of land was acquired for
       irrigation scheme by publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of
                                                                                       B
       the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1of1894) (for short, the Act), on August
       25, 1977. The Land Acquisition Officer in his award dated March 27, 1978
       awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 2023.50 per acre for the dry crop
       lands, Rs. 3035.25 for the irrigated lands, Rs. 40.47 for the waste lands. On
       reference under Section 18 of the Act, the Asstt. District Judge by his
       award and decree dated September 13, 1993 enhanced the compensation             c
       to Rs. 325 per acre to all the lands irrespective of the classification.. On
       appeal, the High Court in the impugned judgment confirmed the same.
       Thus these appeals by special leave.

             The Reference Court proceeded on the premise thanhere are no              D
       sale deeds exhibited for determination of the compensation. Therefore, the
       oral evidence was relied upon to determine the compensation, on the basis
       of the yield. 8 witnesses came to be examined in proof of the yield of the
       acquired lands. One of the witnesses was the Sarpanch of the village and
       his evidence was accepted. The Reference Court also found that the
       witnesses exaggerated the yidd. On that basis, it determined the market         E
       value after deducting 1/3 towards prices at Rs. 325 per acre. It would be
       common knowledge that expenditure would be involved In raising and
       harvesting the crops and that, therefore, on an average 50% of the value
       of the crop the realised would go towards cultivation expenses. Therefore,
       deduction of 1/3rd was not correct in determining the compensation of the       F
       lands on the basis of yield.

              It is undoubtedly true that ohe of the methods of determination of
 .,.   compensation, in the absence of best evidence, namely, sale deeds, is the
       realised value of the crop. Normally, they should have produced the
       statistics from the Agricultlire Department as to the nature of the crops
                                                                                     G
..,    and the prices prevailing at that time. But tmfortunately, neither claimants
       nor the Government took any steps to a~l!c~ that best evidence. It is a
       fact that the Government have failed to adduce any evidence in that behalf.
       However, we cannot reject the oral evidence of the witnesses on that
       ground alone. The court has statutory duty to the society to subject the oral H
     104                 SUPREME COURTREPORTS(1996] SUPP. 10 S.C.R.
A evidence to great scrutiny, applying the test of normal prudent man, i.e.,
  whether he would be willing to purchase the land at the rates proposed by     /
  the Court. On the touch stone of this, the Court should evaluate the ·
  evidence objectively and dispassionately and reach a finding on compensa-
  tion. The reference Court has accepted the evidence of the Sarpanch to be
B the reliable person. Therefore, we proceed on that premise. The ap-
  propriate multiplier should be of 10 years as settled by several judgments
  of this Court. Necessarily, 50% of the net value towards cultivation expen-
  ses requires to be deducted. The award of the Reference Court1 as con-
  firmed by the High court stands set aside and the value of the crop as
  determined by the Reference Court at Rs. 2,050 as average annual income
C stands upheld. Multiplier of 10 years should be applied and deduction of
  50% towards cultivation expenses should be made. After giving deduction,
  the balance will be the net value of the land. On that basis, the claimants
   are entitled to Rs. 20,500 per acre with solatium @ 30% on enhanced
   compensation and interest on enhanced compensation @ 0.9% per annum
'nfor one year from the date of taking possession and 15% per annum till
   date of deposit into the court under the Act as amended by Act 68 of 1984,
   namely 30% solatium on the enhanced compensation, interest on the
   enhanced compensation from the date of taking possession for one year at
   9% and thereafter at 15% till date of deposit.

E          The appeals are accordingly allowed. No costs.

     T.N.A.                                                 Appeals allowed.