It is
settled law of this court in catena of decisions that when
the market value is determined on the basis of the yield
from the trees or plantation, 8 years multiplier shall be
appropriate multiplier. For agricultural land 12-- years
multiplier shall be suitable multiplier.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
STATE OF HARYANA
Vs.
GURCHARAN SINGH & ANR. ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT18/01/1995
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
VENKATACHALA N. (J)
CITATION:
1996 AIR 106 1995 SCC Supl. (2) 637
JT 1995 (2) 345 1995 SCALE (1)530
1 This appeal arises from the judgment and decree of the
High Court of Punjab & Haryana in RSA No.1137 of 1970 and
batch dated May 21, 1981. An extent of 20 acres 38 cents
was notified and published for acquisition in the State
Gazette under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on June 22,
1974 for residential colony. The lands are situated in
Panchkula, near Chandigarh, as satellite town. The Land
Acquisition Collector (for short ’the Collector’) awarded
the market value in his award dated June 25, 1976, to the
Abadi land at the rate of Rs. 12,240/per acre and to the
Gheir Mumkin land @ Rs. 1200/- per acre. In addition, he
also awarded compensation to the fruit bearing trees in the
respective appeals as follows.
R.F.A.NO.1137 OF 1979 = Rs.1,12,993.50
R.F.A.NO.1138 OF 1979 = Rs.1,56,659.40
R.F.A.NO.1354 OF 1979 = Rs. 40,842.00
R.F.A.NO.1355 OF 1979 = Rs.1,65,688.00
2. On reference under s. 1 8, in his award and decree
dated December 12, 1978, the Addl. District Judge affirmed
the award of the Collector. In other words, he passed nil
award. On appeal, the High Court by confirming the market
value of the land, enhanced the compensation to the fruit
bearing trees by 60 % of what was awarded by the Collector
and accordingly granted enhanced compensation with statutory
benefits. Thus this appeal by special leave.
347
3. Ms. Surichi Agarwal, learned counsel for the State,
contended that the High Court has committed grave error of
law in upholding the determination of the compensation both
to the land as well as fruit bearing trees and has also
further committed error in enhancing the market value to the
fruit bearing trees in addition to the confirmation of the
compensation separately awarded for the land and the fruit
bearing trees. It is against the settle principle of law as
laid down by this court in catena of decisions. We find
force in the contention. Sri Bagga, learned counsel for the
respondents, contended that in the year 1966 the price index
was at 144 points whereas in 1970 the index was found to be
at -213 points. The High Court, therefore, was right in
increasing the compensation to the fruit bearing trees by
60%. We find no force in the contention. It is settled law
that the Collector or the court who determines the
compensation for the land as well as fruit bearing trees
cannot determine them separately. The compensation is to
the value of the acquired land. The market value is
determined on the basis of the yield. Then necessarily
applying suitable multiplier, the compensation need to be
awarded. Under no circumstances the court should allow the
compensation on the basis of the nature of the land as well
as fruit bearing trees. In other words, market value of the
land is determined twice over and one on the basis of the
value of the land and again on the basis of the yield got
from the fruit bearing trees. The definition of the land
includes the benefits to arise from the land as defined in
s.3(a) of the Act. After compensation is determined on the
basis of the value of the land from the income applying
suitable multiplier, then the trees would be valued only as
fire-wood and necessary compensation would be given. In
this case, the High Court did not adopt this procedure. We
have looked into the figures furnished in the judgment of
the High Court of the amount awarded by the Officer himself.
He too while determining the compensation at the rate of Rs.
12,240/- per acre on the basis of the yield, the multiplier
applied is more than 8 years. Under no circumstances, the
multiplier should be more than 8 years multiplier as it is
settled law of this court in catena of decisions that when
the market value is determined on the basis of the yield
from the trees or plantation, 8 years multiplier shall be
appropriate multiplier. For agricultural land 12-- years
multiplier shall be suitable multiplier.
4. In this case, the Collector applied more than 8
years multiplier and awarded compensation. The High Court
also has no adverted to this aspect of the matter. The High
Court committed error of law in further enhancing the
compensation. Considered from this perspective, since we
cannot interfere with the award -of the Collector, though
the Collector had committed palpable error of law in
separately awarding the compensation to the land as well as
fruit bearing trees, it is an offer which cannot be
disturbed because of s.25 of the Acts. The rate. of
compensation should have been less than what the Collector
has awarded, we cannot reduce the amount less than the
amount offered by the Collector, yet we have to hold that
the Collector, civil court and the High Court should have
applied 8 years multiplier and determined the compensation.
They awarded much more than what the, claimant would justly
and fairly be entitled to. Therefore, further enhancement
of 60% by the High Court on the basis of the Price Index is
clearly illegal.
348
5.The appeals are accordingly allowed. The judgment and
decree of the High Court is set aside and the award and
decree of the Reference Court is affirmed. In the
circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear
their own costs.
settled law of this court in catena of decisions that when
the market value is determined on the basis of the yield
from the trees or plantation, 8 years multiplier shall be
appropriate multiplier. For agricultural land 12-- years
multiplier shall be suitable multiplier.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
STATE OF HARYANA
Vs.
GURCHARAN SINGH & ANR. ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT18/01/1995
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
VENKATACHALA N. (J)
CITATION:
1996 AIR 106 1995 SCC Supl. (2) 637
JT 1995 (2) 345 1995 SCALE (1)530
1 This appeal arises from the judgment and decree of the
High Court of Punjab & Haryana in RSA No.1137 of 1970 and
batch dated May 21, 1981. An extent of 20 acres 38 cents
was notified and published for acquisition in the State
Gazette under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on June 22,
1974 for residential colony. The lands are situated in
Panchkula, near Chandigarh, as satellite town. The Land
Acquisition Collector (for short ’the Collector’) awarded
the market value in his award dated June 25, 1976, to the
Abadi land at the rate of Rs. 12,240/per acre and to the
Gheir Mumkin land @ Rs. 1200/- per acre. In addition, he
also awarded compensation to the fruit bearing trees in the
respective appeals as follows.
R.F.A.NO.1137 OF 1979 = Rs.1,12,993.50
R.F.A.NO.1138 OF 1979 = Rs.1,56,659.40
R.F.A.NO.1354 OF 1979 = Rs. 40,842.00
R.F.A.NO.1355 OF 1979 = Rs.1,65,688.00
2. On reference under s. 1 8, in his award and decree
dated December 12, 1978, the Addl. District Judge affirmed
the award of the Collector. In other words, he passed nil
award. On appeal, the High Court by confirming the market
value of the land, enhanced the compensation to the fruit
bearing trees by 60 % of what was awarded by the Collector
and accordingly granted enhanced compensation with statutory
benefits. Thus this appeal by special leave.
347
3. Ms. Surichi Agarwal, learned counsel for the State,
contended that the High Court has committed grave error of
law in upholding the determination of the compensation both
to the land as well as fruit bearing trees and has also
further committed error in enhancing the market value to the
fruit bearing trees in addition to the confirmation of the
compensation separately awarded for the land and the fruit
bearing trees. It is against the settle principle of law as
laid down by this court in catena of decisions. We find
force in the contention. Sri Bagga, learned counsel for the
respondents, contended that in the year 1966 the price index
was at 144 points whereas in 1970 the index was found to be
at -213 points. The High Court, therefore, was right in
increasing the compensation to the fruit bearing trees by
60%. We find no force in the contention. It is settled law
that the Collector or the court who determines the
compensation for the land as well as fruit bearing trees
cannot determine them separately. The compensation is to
the value of the acquired land. The market value is
determined on the basis of the yield. Then necessarily
applying suitable multiplier, the compensation need to be
awarded. Under no circumstances the court should allow the
compensation on the basis of the nature of the land as well
as fruit bearing trees. In other words, market value of the
land is determined twice over and one on the basis of the
value of the land and again on the basis of the yield got
from the fruit bearing trees. The definition of the land
includes the benefits to arise from the land as defined in
s.3(a) of the Act. After compensation is determined on the
basis of the value of the land from the income applying
suitable multiplier, then the trees would be valued only as
fire-wood and necessary compensation would be given. In
this case, the High Court did not adopt this procedure. We
have looked into the figures furnished in the judgment of
the High Court of the amount awarded by the Officer himself.
He too while determining the compensation at the rate of Rs.
12,240/- per acre on the basis of the yield, the multiplier
applied is more than 8 years. Under no circumstances, the
multiplier should be more than 8 years multiplier as it is
settled law of this court in catena of decisions that when
the market value is determined on the basis of the yield
from the trees or plantation, 8 years multiplier shall be
appropriate multiplier. For agricultural land 12-- years
multiplier shall be suitable multiplier.
4. In this case, the Collector applied more than 8
years multiplier and awarded compensation. The High Court
also has no adverted to this aspect of the matter. The High
Court committed error of law in further enhancing the
compensation. Considered from this perspective, since we
cannot interfere with the award -of the Collector, though
the Collector had committed palpable error of law in
separately awarding the compensation to the land as well as
fruit bearing trees, it is an offer which cannot be
disturbed because of s.25 of the Acts. The rate. of
compensation should have been less than what the Collector
has awarded, we cannot reduce the amount less than the
amount offered by the Collector, yet we have to hold that
the Collector, civil court and the High Court should have
applied 8 years multiplier and determined the compensation.
They awarded much more than what the, claimant would justly
and fairly be entitled to. Therefore, further enhancement
of 60% by the High Court on the basis of the Price Index is
clearly illegal.
348
5.The appeals are accordingly allowed. The judgment and
decree of the High Court is set aside and the award and
decree of the Reference Court is affirmed. In the
circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear
their own costs.
No comments:
Post a Comment