http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SARAT CHANDRA BISOI & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       11/05/2000

BENCH: S.R.Babu, R.C.Lahoti

JUDGMENT:

     R.C.  Lahoti, J.

     In  the  early  eighties  large tracts  of  land  were acquired  in the State of Orissa by invoking the  provisions of  Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for establishing an aluminium smelter plant and other ancillary industries, civil township and  supporting services.  For the purpose of assessing  the compensation to be awarded to several land-owners whose land was  acquired  an assessment report was called by  the  Land Acquisition  Officer.  The land consists of two kinds :  (i) Sarad-I  Dofasali,  and  (ii) Taila.  During the  course  of hearing  we were told by the learned counsel for the parties that  in the local language a fertile or cultivated land  is called  Sarad and Sarad-I Dofasali land is one on which  two crops can be taken.  Taila is a barren land.  The assessment report appointed the value of cultivable land at Rs.12,500/- per  acre  and  of barren land at Rs.7,500/- per  acre.   On 27.5.1982  the  Collector of District Dhenkanal,  where  the land  is  situated,  addressed a letter  to  the  Divisional Commissioner stating that the rates of land appointed by the assessment  report were on the lower side and he recommended that Rs.22,000/- and Rs.12,500/- respectively per acre would be  reasonable rates for fixing the compensation.  The  Land Acquisition  Officer  made  an  award  accepting  the  rates suggested  by  the Collector.  The  dissatisfied  landowners sought  for  a reference to the Civil Court  requesting  for enhancement of the quantum of compensation.

     The learned Sub-Judge after recording evidence arrived at  a finding that a rate of Rs.40,000/- per acre for  Sarad land and a rate of Rs.30,000/- per acre for Taila land would be  reasonable  rates  at which the compensation  should  be awarded.  A perusal of the judgment of the trial court shows that  so far as Sarad-I Dofasali land is concerned there was no  evidence  adduced  by either  party  of  contemporaneous transactions  of  land  so as to determine the  market  rate prevailing  in the area and therefore the court applied  the capitalisation method of determination of value based on the net  annual  yield  of the land.  The  learned  Trial  Judge determined  the  annual net yield of the land at  Rs.2,000/- per  acre  and then by capitalising the same by  applying  a multiplier  of  20,  determined  the value of  the  land  at Rs.40,000/-  per acre.  The finding as to the value of Taila land  was  based  on the inference drawn  from  evidence  of transactions of sale of land adduced by the parties.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

     The  High Court upheld the assessment of annual  yield of  Sarad  land as found by the trial court.   However,  the learned  Single Judge was of the opinion that multiplier  of 20  as applied by the trial court was on the higher side and a   multiplier  of  16  only   should  have  been   adopted. Accrdingly  the  value of Sarad land has been determined  at Rs.32,000/-  per  acre.   As to Taila land  the  High  Court formed  an  opinion  that the rate of Rs.30,000/-  per  acre determined  by  the  trial  court   could  not  be   applied uniformally  to all the land acquired.  The High Court chose to  adopt belting system by categorising the Taila land into three  categories,  namely,  (i)   land  near  the  national highway,  (ii) land by the side of the gram panchayat  road, and (iii) other such lands which are not road-side lands and appointed  the  value thereof respectively  at  Rs.35,000/-, Rs.30,000/-  and Rs.25,000/- per acre.  Having so determined the  rate  of  the land the High Court  found  that  several pieces  of land belonging to different landowners needed  to be  categorised and as satisfactory evidence in that  regard was  not  available on the record, remanded the case to  the trial  court for holding further enquiry so as to  determine into  which  out of the three categories of Taila  land  the acquired pieces of land fell.

     Feeling  aggrieved by the judgment of the High  Court, the  National Aluminium Co.  Ltd., for the benefit of  which the  land  acquisition  has  taken place, have  come  up  in appeal.

     We  have  heard the learned counsel for  the  parties. Ordinarily,  the  most  accepted and  recognised  method  of appointing  compensation for land acquisition is to find out the value of the land prevailing on the date of notification under  Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act which can  best be  enabled  by tendering in evidence  documentary  evidence showing  the price at which similar pieces of land have been bought  and  sold  on and around the date  of  notification. Where there are no sales of comparable land the value has to be  found  out in some other way.  One of the methods is  to find  out the annual income of the land which the owner  has been  deriving or is expected to derive from the use of  the land  and capitalise the same by adopting a multiplier.   In Union  of India and Anr.  Vs.  Smt.  Shanti Devi etc.etc.  - AIR  1983  SC 1190 this Court has said :   The  capitalised value  of  a  property is the amount of money  whose  annual interest  at  the highest prevailing interest at  any  given time  will be its net annual income.  The net annual  income from a land is arrived at by deducting from the gross annual income  all  outgoings such as expenditure  on  cultivation, land  revenue  etc.   The net return from  landed  property, generally  speaking, reflects the prevalent rate of interest on safe money investments.

     It was a case of very large tract of agricultural land having been acquired for Beas project.  This Court held that in  the  facts  and  circumstances of  that  case  15  years purchase  would  be proper for determining the  compensation and  not 20 years purchase.  Our attention has been  invited to  a Division Bench decision of the High Court of Orissa in Land  Acquisition Zone Officer Vs.  Damberudhar Pradhan  and Ors.   -  AIR  1991 Orissa 271 wherein on  a  conspectus  of decided  cases,  the Division Bench has held that  16  years purchase was ideal to be adopted for fixing the market value of  the land in Orissa.  The High Court has adopted the same

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

multiplier  for  this  case.   We  do  not  find  any  fault therewith,  in  the facts and circumstances of the case  and approve the same.

     As  to  Taila  land  no fault can be  found  with  the belting  system  adopted by the High Court so as to  make  a distinction  between  three categories of land  which  would obviously be having different market values.  The submission of  Shri  Altaf  Ahmad,  the  learned  Additional  Solicitor General  is that the appellants were seriously aggrieved  by the  finding arrived at by the trial court and substantially accepted  by the High Court in the matter of appointing  the sale  price  of the land.  The learned Additional  Solicitor General  has carried this Court through the evidence adduced by  the  parties  and available on the record of  the  trial court.   We  agree  with the learned ASG that  the  evidence adduced  by the claimants and the finding arrived at by  the trial  court  suffer from a few infirmities.   Firstly,  the pieces  of  land forming subject- matter of acquisition  are large  pieces  of  land while the evidence  adduced  by  the landowners  consist of transactions relating to small pieces of  land  or  plots.  The value of small pieces of  land  is always  on the higher side and large pieces of land may  not fetch  the price at the same rate.  Secondly, very  skeleton evidence has been adduced by the landowners.  In some of the cases  there  are  just one or two  transactions  placed  on record.  Thirdly, satisfactory evidence has not been adduced by showing the locations of the land forming subject- matter of  transactions  tendered  in evidence so as  to  enable  a finding  being satisfactorily recorded that the transactions were  of land comparable with the one under acquisition.  In our  opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the case  it would  suffice if the figures of the value arrived at by the High  Court were discounted by 25% approximately.  In  other words,  the  rate  at  which   the  compensation  should  be calculated in respect of Taila land should be at the rate of Rs.27,000/-,  Rs.22,500/-  and Rs.18,000/-  respectively  in place  of Rs.35,000/-, Rs.30,000/- and Rs.25,000/- per  acre as  appointed  by the High Court.  We make it clear that  we have  followed the abovesaid approach not so much by way  of any  principle  but more by way of finding out a  reasonable solution  so  as to give a quietus to this litigation.   The lands  were  acquired in early eighties and by this  time  a period  of about 20 years has elapsed.  We are convinced  of the  need of avoiding a remand to record further evidence in this  regard except to the extent considered unavoidable  by the  High  Court.  We are told that there are still a  large number  of  cases pending and awaiting finalisation of  land acquisition compensation and they all need to be disposed of expeditiously.

     Directions  made  by  trial  court in  the  matter  of payment  of  solatium and interest were  neither  challenged before nor disturbed by the High Court.  They would bind the parties.

     The  appeals are disposed of accordingly.  No order as to the costs.