http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: THE SECRETARY, KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, GADAG & ORS

DATE OF JUDGMENT07/03/1995

BENCH: HANSARIA B.L. (J) BENCH: HANSARIA B.L. (J) RAMASWAMY, K.

CITATION:  1995 SCC  Supl.  (2)   1 JT 1995 (3)   184  1995 SCALE  (2)146

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: HANSARIA, J.: 1.   Leave granted in both the petitions. 2.   A  plot  of land measuring two acres  was  acquired  by Notification  dated  14.4.1988  for  establishment  of  sub- station  by the Karnataka Electricity Board,  the  appellant herein.  The market value of the land was fixed by the  Land Acquisition  Officer  at Rs. 13,000/- per acre by  an  award made on 21.8.1989. On reference being made, the Civil Judge, however, enhanced the compensation to Rs. 10,000/- per gunta i.e.  Rs. 4 lacs per acre by an order dated  16.12.1989.  On appeal   being   preferred  before  the  High   Court,   the enhancement  was sustained but with the direction to  deduct 65% towards development and other charges.  The  Electricity Board has preferred this appeal by special leave.  The  land owner  has  also  approached  this  Court  seeking   further enhancement. 3.   A  perusal of the order of Reference Court  shows  that the land owner had himself led evidence to show yield, which was found to be around Rs. 11,000/- per acre per year.  This was  the gross income; the net annual income assessed  being Rs.   5,695/-,  after  deducting  50  %  towards   cost   of cultivation.   The  market value as per  the  capitalisation method  was,  therefore, fixed at Rs.28,470/-  per  acre  by deducting  50 % of the average annual yield,  assuming  that the claimant had exaggerated the average annual yield in his evidence; he being an interested witness. 4.   The Reference Court, instead of fixing the market value at Rs.28,470/- per acre determined as per the capitalisation method,  fixed  the same at Rs.4 lacs on the strength  of  a solitary  sale  deed which related to small  piece  of  land measuring 74 feet x 17 feet, which was sold for Rs. 10,000/- at the relevant point of time. 5.   Learned  counsel for the Board has contended  that  the Reference Court, as well as the High Court, erred in law  in placing reliance on a solitary sale transaction and that too

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

relatable to a very small piece of land in fixing the market value at Rs. 4 lacs.  The learned counsel for the  claimant, however, draws our attention to the evidence of the approved Land and Building valuer who was examined as P.W.3 and whose evidence  has  been dealt in para 10 of  the  Civil  Judge’s order.   We have been taken through this part of  the  Civil Judge’s  order  wherein mention has been made,  inter  alia, about  the  aforesaid plot of land being within  the  Gadag- Betigeri  Municipal limit, which is not so, as the  acquired land is situated beyond the limit of the municipality.  From the judgment of the High Court, it further appears that  the plot  of  land whose sale was taken into  consideration  had abutted two main roads; and could not have, therefore,  been taken  as the basis for determining the market value of  the acquired land.  The High Court itself has, therefore, stated that the sale deed could not have been made as the basis for determining the market value.  Being of this view, what  the High  Court  did  was to make a  deduction  of  65%  towards development and other charges. 6.   According to us, however, if the sale deed in  question could  not have formed the basis of determining the,  market value  of the acquired land, the proper course open for  the courts   below  was  to  fix  the  valuation  as   per   the capitalisation  method,  as was sought to  be  pressed  into service by the claimant himself which is apparent 186 from the fact that to bring on record the yield he  examined himself The courts below committed manifest error of law  in having fixed the market value by taking into consideration a transaction  wherein  the  land was valued  on  square  foot basis.   It has been noticed by this Court. in  its  several decisions that recourse to determination of market value  on square foot basis is taken at times to show the value rather less, whereas ultimately it works out to be much more. 7.   We,  therefore,  set aside the order of  the  Reference Court as modified by the High Court; instead, fix the market value  at  Rs.28,470/-  per acre.   The  claimant  would  be entitled  to solarium @ 30 % and an amount  calculated  @12% per  annum on the market value so fixed from 14.8.1988  till 21.8-1989.  This apart, the claimant would be paid  interest @9%  for  a  period  of one year from  the  date  of  taking possession  of the land and thereafter @ 15% per annum  till the  date of payment of the enhanced compensation, less  the amount already paid. 8.   In  the result, the appeal No. 3247/95 arising  out  of SLP(C)  No.2246/94  is  allowed as  aforesaid.   The  appeal No.3248/ 95 arising out of SLP(C) 21959/94 stands dismissed. No order as to costs. 188