JUDGMENT
M.R. Calla, J.
1. This batch of 27 First Appeals filed by the State of Gujarat, Special Land Acquisition Officer (Narmada Project) and Executive Engineer (Narmada Project) as appellants, is directed against the order dated 10th May, 1996 passed by the Assistant Judge, Bharuch as Reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference Cases Nos.844/88 to 846/88 (3), 848/88 to 850/88 (3), 1192/98 to 1204/88 (13), 1206/88 to 1211/88 (6) and 1213/88 to 1214/88 (2); the main Land Reference Cases being Nos.844/88 to 846/88. The learned counsel for the appellants in all these appeals have challenged the impugned order dated 10th May, 1996 passed by the Reference Court on the following grounds:
(1) The Reference Court has erred in awarding the interest on solatium;
(2) The Reference Court has erred in deducting only 25 per cent of the value of the crop whereas it should have deducted 50 per cent towards the value of the crop in view of the observations made in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Rama Rana reported in AIR 1997 Supreme Court 1845 (para 4); and
(3) The Reference Court erred in applying the multiplier of 12.5 instead of 10 while granting the compensation.
2. It has been given out by the learned Government Pleader, Mr.P.G.Desai appearing on behalf of the appellants Nos.1 and 2 that in these cases the land admeasuring 36 hectares 89 Are and 89 Sq.mtrs. in all was acquired. The land of the claimants is situated at Village Pakhajan, Taluka Vaghara, District Bharuch and the same was acquired for the purpose of Narmada Project. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the award on 25th January, 1988 awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.60/- per Are for the acquired lands. The claimants being aggrieved from this award dated 25th January, 1988 sought for the references under sec.18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Reference Court and the Reference Court has passed the award dated 10th May, 1996 whereby the references have been partly allowed, every claimant has been held to be entitled to get the compensation a the rate of Rs.650/- per Are for acquired land, every claimant has been held to be entitled to get 30 per cent solatium upon the market price, every claimant has been held to be entitled to get 12 per cent interest from the date of the notification under sec.4 to the date of the award, every claimant has also been held to be entitled to get additional compensation from the date of the possession of the acquired land at the rate of 9 per cent interest per annum for the first year and then 15 per cent interest per annum for the subsequent years till the realisation of the amount and every claimant is held to be entitled to get proportionate costs.
3. So far as the first ground that interest has been wrongly directed to be paid on the mount of solatium is concerned, we may straightaway point out that no such relief has been granted by the Reference Court and in absence of any relief granting interest on the amount of solatium, the challenge to the Reference Court’s order on this score is absolutely misplaced and misconceived.
4. The next ground of challenge is that only 25 per cent deduction has been made against the value of the crop towards the cultivation expenses whereas it should have been 50 per cent. In this regard, the observations made by the Supreme Court in para 4 in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Rama Rana (supra) relied upon by the learned Government Pleader are reproduced as under:
“The reference Court proceeded on the premise that there are no sale deeds exhibited for determination of the compensation. Therefore, the oral evidence was relied upon to determine the compensation, on the basis of the yield. 8 witnesses came to be examined in proof of the yield of the acquired lands. One of the witnesses was the Sarpanch of the village and his evidence was accepted. The reference Court also found that the witnesses exaggerated the yield. On that basis, it determined the market value after deducting 1/3 towards prices at Rs.325/- per acre. It would be common knowledge that expenditure would be involved in raising and harvesting the crops and that, therefore, on an average 50% of the value of the crop realised would go towards cultivation expenses. Therefore, deduction of 1/3rd was not correct in determining the compensation of the lands on the basis of yield.”
5. We find that it is a case in which no documentary evidence except Village forms has been relied upon by either of the parties and the Court has proceeded on the basis of oral evidence. The Reference Court has considered the oral evidence from para 6 onwards. The only witness who has been examined is at exh.9, namely Mr.Harisingh Ramsingh in Land Reference Case No.844 of 1988. The Department did not examine any witness. No documentary evidence in the form of sale instances was produced. The certificates issued by the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee with regard to the price of the crops have been referred to in the statement of the said witness and such certificates have also been produced on record. On the basis of the evidence, it was found that there was a production of 13 quintal tuver in one hectare, production income of which was about Rs.6,890/- at the rate of Rs.530/- per quintal. This price was found to be for the year 1985. The learned Government Pleader who appeared before the Reference Court himself has stated that in the dry agricultural zone like Vaghara Taluka, the expenditure cost is about 25 per cent to 40 per cent whereas on behalf of the claimants, it was argued that the production cost is only 25 per cent and therefore the net income should be Rs.6,890 – 1,722 = Rs.5,168/- and on that basis, the net maximum income rate comes out to be Rs.52/- per Are.
6. We have gone through the impugned order and have heard learned counsel. So far as the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Rama Rana (supra) decided by the Supreme Court is concerned, there is no doubt that that the Supreme Court has mentioned that it would be a common knowledge that expenditure would be involved in raising and harvesting the crops and that, therefore, on an average 50 per cent of the value of the crop realised would go towards cultivation expenses. However, in the facts of the present case, the learned Government Pleader who appeared before the Reference Court himself had argued that in dry agricultural zone like Vaghara Taluka, expenditure is about 25 per cent to 40 per cent. In view of this positive statement made by the Government Pleader himself, if the Reference Court has taken into consideration the deduction of 25 per cent only, it cannot be said that the same is unreasonable. Moreover, in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Rama Rana (supra) the extent of the total land acquired was 68 hectares 62.5 sq.mtrs. for an irrigation scheme whereas in the present case, total land which has been acquired in these cases is 36 hectares 89 Are and 89 sq.mtrs. only and it may be further pointed out that the Supreme Court while making observation that on an average 50 per cent of the value of the crop realised would go towards cultivation expenses, has also mentioned in the earlier part of para 4 that the Reference Court has also found that the witnesses had exaggerated the yield. Thus, in the facts of the present case, the deduction of 50 per cent against the cultivation expenses as has been observed by the Supreme Court with reference to the common knowledge, may not strictly apply when the Department itself had conceded that the expenditure cost in the area of the acquired lands ranges from 25 per cent to 40 per cent and therefore, the Reference Court has erred on the right side and applied a deduction of 25 per cent which was the minimum production cost and was to the advantage of the agriculturists whose lands had been acquired. For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order on this ground.
7. The next grievance which has been raised is that instead of applying the multiplier of 12.5, the Reference Court should have applied the multiplier of 10 only as has been done in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Rama Rana (supra) and as was applied in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. P. Veerabhadrappa reported in 1984 Supreme Court 774. Para 21 of the judgment in the above reported case shows that after giving reasons in para 20 on the question of consideration for applying the multiplier, it has been observed that when the rate of return on investment was 8.25 per cent for the years 1971 and 1972, person investing his capital in agricultural lands would ordinarily expect 2 per cent to 3 per cent more than what he could obtain from gift as its securities or other forms on some investment and therefore the proper multiplier to be applied for the purpose of capitalisation could not in any event exceed 10. Though the Reference Court has also referred to the very same decision of the Supreme Court in its order, i.e. Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. P.Veerabhadrappa (supra) reported in AIR 1984 SC 774, it has taken this case as an instance and has applied the multiplier of 12.5 merely because in that case before the Supreme Court the Government Pleader had contended that the proper multiplier to be applied should be 12.5 in computation of the capitalised value of the lands in those cases having regard to the rate of return of 8 per cent at the relevant time, i.e. on the date of notification under sec.4(1) of the Act and in this view of the matter, the Supreme Court found that it must be held that the multiplier of 12.5 should be applied in computation of the capitalised value of the lands. In the present case, the notification was issued in the year 1985 whereas in the case before the Supreme Court the acquisition proceedings had been initiated in the years 1971 and 1972 and the multiplier of 12.5 was applied in the facts of that case, otherwise it was categorically observed that for the purpose of capitalisation, the multiplier to be applied should not exceed 10. We, therefore, find that instead of applying the multiplier of 12.5, the Reference Court ought to have applied the multiplier of 10 only and accordingly the market price should have been computed by multiplying the amount of Rs.52/- per Are by 10 instead of Rs.650/- per Are. To that extent, the impugned order deserves to be modified.
8. Having considered the three grounds on which the impugned order has been assailed by the appellants in the present cases, we find that these appeals must partly succeed. The impugned order dated 10th May, 1996 passed by the Assistant Judge, Bharuch as Reference Court under the Land Acquisition Act in Land Reference Cases Nos. 844/88 to 846/88 (3), 848/88 to 850/88 (3), 1192/98 to 1204/88 (13), 1206/88 to 1211/88 (6) and 1213/88 to 1214/88 (2) is hereby modified only to the extent that in the operative para (ii) of the impugned order, instead of the figure Rs.650/-, it will be read as if it was Rs.520/- per Are and the claimants will be entitled to compensation accordingly. For all other reliefs, the impugned order passed by the Reference Court remains in tact and the appeals fail. No order as to costs.
9. We are informed by the learned counsel for the parties that 60 per cent of the amount was deposited with the Reference Court and it is expected that the remaining amount of 40 per cent would also be deposited within a reasonable time. In case 60 per cent amount which had already been deposited earlier has not been withdrawn by any of the claimants, it will be open for them to withdraw the same in terms of the order dated 15th April, 1998 passed by the Division Bench in Civil Application No.9930 of 1997 in First Appeal No.4373 of 1996.