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

PETITIONER: VITTHALBHAI BAKORBHAI (DEAD) THROUGHLRS. & ORS. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,CAPITAL PROJECT & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       01/03/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (3) 592        JT 1996 (3)   394  1996 SCALE  (2)843

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             with          Civil Appeal Nos.4290-4306 & 4308-4354/96    (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.17637/95, 18947/95, 26372-                  26386/95 & 26387-26433/95)                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      We have heard learned counsel on both sides.      These appeals  by  special  leave  arise  from  various judgments of  Gujarat High  Court. Facts  in first  of them, viz., C.A.  @  SLP(C)  No.24953/95  directed  against  First Appeal No.704/93 would be sufficient for disposal of all the appeals. The  High Court  determined the compensation at the rate of  Rs.50/- per sq. meter(after giving due deductions). Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was  published on  July 7,  1983. The  land Acquisition Officer determined  compensation between Rs.20/- and Rs.24/- per sq.  meter. On  reference under  Section 18, civil Court fixed it  between Rs.94  and Rs.110 per sq. meter. On appeal under Section 54, the High court reduced the compensation to Rs.50/- per  sq. meter.  The lands in this case are situated in Vavol  Village which  is now  part different  sectors  of Gandhi Nagar.  The lands are in Sector 4. The High Court has pointed that  though Sector  4 was  underdeveloped  area  as stated by  the reference Court, the plots of land under sale are situated in developed area, their claim for compensation @ Rs.300/-  per sq. meter cannot be accepted. The High Court relied upon  the yield  of  the  income  after  taking  into consideration  all  the  attendant  circumstances  and  more particularly the  location of  the land,  its  proximity  to developed area  and the  existing potentials of its use etc. and  applying   the  multiplier   of  10,   determined   the compensation at  the rate  of Rs.50/-  per sq.  meter.  Shri Bhatt, learned  senior counsel  has contended  that when the lands are situated in developing area and plots in developed area were  already sold  after  ploughing  at  the  rate  of

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

Rs.330/- per  sq. meter  after  giving  due  deduction,  the determination of  the compensation at the rate of Rs.50/- is inadequate. He  also contended that for the same land in the same village acquired by notification dated January 29, 1978 market value  was determined  at the rate of Rs.80/- per sq. meter which  was allowed to become final. The appellants are entitled at least to that rate. He further contended that by virtue of  another notification  dated February  18, 1981 in respect of  {ands situated  at close proximity of 300 meters to the  lands covered  in  the  present  notification  dated January  15,   1978,  the   appellants   are   entitled   to compensation at  the rate  of  at  least  Rs.80/-  .  st  is contended by  Smt. H.  Wahi, learned counsel for respondents that the High Court has considered all the relevant facts of the case  and taken  a pragmatic  view  in  determining  the compensation. The  view arrived  at by the High Court cannot be said  to be  incorrect compensation.  When the High court had determined  compensation at the rate of Rs. 50/- per sq. meter for  the acquisition of 1983. for the lands covered by acquisition of  1981 cannot  be  higher  than  the  rate  of Rs.50/- per  sq. meter  though there  is no  evidence as  to under what  circumstances the appeal against the award dated January 29,  1978 had  come to  become final. It cannot be a ground to  further enhance the compensation to the land when the Court,  on  the  relevant  evidence,  had  adjudged  the reasonable compensation  and determined  the market value at Rs. 50/- per sq. meter.      Having given  anxious consideration  to the  respective contentions, the  question arises:  as to  what will  be the reasonable market  value for  the acquired  lands? In  these appeals, all  the  acquired  lands  are  situated  in  Vavol Village in  Sector 4.  The High Court has recorded a finding that it  is not  a developed  area. The Reference Court also has noted  that some of the lands are agricultural lands and some of  the lands  are non-agricultural lands. On the basis thereof.   the    Reference   Court   has   determined   the compensation. All  the sale  instances of  the lands sold in the developed  area for determination of compensation by the reference Court,  as pointed  by the  High Court are clearly illegal. Because  they are  not sales comparable to the sale of lands in question. The High Court, therefore, relied upon the yield  of income and applied multiplier of 10. It is now settled  law  that  multiplier  of  10  is  the  appropriate multiplier. Proper  basis for evaluating the market value is the annual  yield. The finding recorded by the High Court is that the  lands are, as existing, capable of fetching market value at  the rate of Rs.50/- per sq . meter. In view of the reasons recorded  by the  High Court, we cannot say that the finding is vitiated by any application of wrong principle of law. It  is true  that in  respect of  1978  acquisition  no appeal came  to be filed, but we do not see any reason as to why the  appeal could not be filed. The lands covered in the notification dated  February 1981  cannot  be  given  higher compensation  than   given  in   respect  of  land  acquired notification dated  July 7,  1983. The  reasoning adopted by the High  court, therefore,  is not vitiated by any error of law.      The appeal  and consequentially  all connected  appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.