IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 473 OF 2010 [Arising out of SLP(C) No.10849 of 2009]

MANSOOR ALI .......APPELLANT(S)  

Versus

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER .....RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Leave granted.  Heard the parties.  Delay  

condoned.  

2. The claimant in a land acquisition case is  

the  appellant.   His  land  was  acquired  in  pursuance  of  

preliminary  notification  dated  23.4.1981.   The  Land  

Acquisition  Officer,  by  his  award  dated  11.3.1991,  

determined the compensation as Rs.7200/- per acre.  The  

reference Court increased it to Rs.20,000/- per acre by its  

judgment and award dated 19.3.2004 by adopting the method  

of capitalising the income from yield.  The High Court, by  

its  impugned  judgment  dated  28.8.2008,  further  increased  

the  compensation  to  Rs.24,000/-  per  acre,  following  the  

said method.

3. The  appellant  contends  that  there  is  a  

serious clerical and calculation error in calculating the  

compensation.  He points out that the reference  Court has

....2.

- 2 -

assumed Rs.117/- as the price of sugarcane per metric tonne  

instead of Rs.236/-.  It is pointed out that the sugar  

factory  had  given  a  certificate  dated  6.12.2002  which  

showed that the appellant had delivered 117 metric tonnes  

of sugarcane in the year 1981-1982 and the sugarcane price  

was  Rs.236/-  per  metric  tonne.   But  the  trial  Court,  

instead of taking Rs.236/- per MT as the price for the  

purpose of calculating the market value of capitalisation  

method, wrongly assumed Rs.117/- as the price per MT.  This  

has  not  been  corrected  even  by  the  High  Court.   It  is  

contended  that  if  the  certificate  issued  by  the  sugar  

factory  is  taken  note  of  with  reference  to  the  price  

disclosed  therein,  the  compensation  would  completely  be  

different.   

4.  The appellant is right in his submission that  

a  wrong  sugarcane  price  has  been  made  the  basis  for  

calculation.   But  we  find  that  if  the  correction,  as  

pointed out by the appellant, is to be made then it has to  

be  made  also  with  reference  to  other  entries  in  the  

certificate.  If the yield is taken as 117 MT from the land  

measuring 7 acres 15 cents, then the yield would be less  

than 16 metric tonnes which is far less than 35 metric  

tonnes   assumed   by   the  reference Court.  There is no

.....3.

- 3 -

evidence  about  the  extent  of  land  under  sugarcane  

cultivation.  Therefore, the entire matter will have to be  

re-assessed with reference to any further evidence that may  

be led in this behalf.

4. In view of the above, we allow this appeal,  

set  aside  the  judgment  of  the  High  Court  and  reference  

Court and remit the matter to the reference Court to give  

due opportunity to the parties to let in further evidence  

in regard to the price and then decide the market value in  

accordance with law. As this is a old matter, hearing and  

disposal to be expedited.

  .........................J.          ( R.V. RAVEENDRAN )

New Delhi;              .........................J. January 15, 2010.           ( SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR )