Addl. Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Yamanappa Basalingappa Chalwadi

Judgment

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 3193- 3215 of 1982. 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. SuPREJ\iE COURT REPORTS 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 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 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 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 question is squarely covered by a Judgment of this Court in Special land Acquisition Officer, Davangere v. P. Veerabharappa & Ors., [1984] 2 SCC 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 ten years multiplier is the peoper method of valuing the lands by capitalisation method. The appeals are accordingly allowed in part and the respondents 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.