JUDGMENT
S.U. Khan, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. These 19 appeals have been filed by LIP. State Industrial Development Corporation (U.P.S.I.D.C.) against common judgment and decree dated 22.07.1994 passed by IIIrd Additional District Judge, Hamirpur in 19 Land Acquisition References (L.A.R.). The said references were filed by the respondents in these appeals under Section 18 of Land, Acquisition Act. The acquired land was treated to be agricultural in nature. Special Land Acquisition Officer (S.L.O.) had awarded Ihe compensation @ Rs. 5000/- per acre and Rs. 75,007- per acre depending upon the quality of the land. Through the award dated 30.12.1988, S.L.O. determined the market value on the basis of sale deed dated 21.04.1986 executed by Ram Snehi in favour of Shiv Prasad Prajapati. S.L.O. on the basis of order dated 16.02.1984 deducted the amount of compensation by 10%, 12.5%, 20% and 25% depending upon the area belonging to particular persons of the acquired land.
3. A total area of about 250 acres situate in Village and Paragana Salempur, Tehsil and District Hamirpur was acquired for establishing Industrial Estate. Under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, notification was published in the Gazette on 02.01.1987 and in the newspapers on 6th and 8th February, 1987 and by beat of drum on 15.02.1987. Similarly, notification under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act was published in the Gazette on 12.03.1987 and in the newspapers on 14th and 15th March, 1987 and through beat of drum on 30.03.1987.
4. The numbers of L.A.Rs. before IIIrd Additional District Judge. Hamirpur, which was decided by the common judgment impugned through these First Appeals, were 78, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 88, 89, 91, 92, 93, 98, 100, 101, 102, 104, 105, 106 & 107, all of 1989. Claimants-respondents were Bhumidhars of different portions of the acquired land.
5. Possession of the acquired land was taken on 31.12.1987. The learned A.D.J, awarded the compensation of Rs. 35,000/- per acre. The formula applied for determining the market value was capitalization of yield. The learned A.D.J, held that the yield was about 18 to 20 maunds of wheat per bigha, price of which at the relevant time was about Rs. 1500/-. On the said basis, it was held that per year yield was of Rs. 1500/- per bigha equivalent to Rs. 3500/- per acre per year.
6. As far as the sale deed relied upon by the S.L.O. is concerned, the Additional District Judge held that its photocopy was filed. The A.D.J, held that the said land was about one kilometer away from the acquired land.
7. A sale deed was sought to be relied upon by the claimants, however the said sale deed was rejected by learned A.D.J. on the ground that the land sold through the said deed was also about 1.5 kilometer away from the land in dispute.
8. In order to determine agricultural potential of the land in dispute, it was necessary to decide as to whether the land was irrigated or un-irrigated. The case of the claimants was that the land was irrigated from a government tube well established in 1983 bearing tube well No. 167 and situate in plot Nos. 3101 & 3102. The learned A.D.J, himself inspected the spot on 06.07.1994. It was found on inspection that the tube well was in good working condition. On the basis of trace map for government tube well No. 167, situate in village Marua Sumerpur, the A.D.J, found that it was in working condition since 1983 and showed that all the acquired plots were within the command area of the said tube well and in the trace map it was also shown that since 1393 Fasli, adjoining plots were being irrigated 1393 Fasli corresponds to 01.07.1985 to 30.06.1986. The trace map was certified by Ziledar and Executing Engineer Tube Well Division. Additional District Judge also noted that no contrary evidence in that regard was adduced by the State. The Additional District Judge noted that copy of Khasra was not filed and receipts showing payment of irrigation charges were also not filed by all the claimants but it was not fatal. Copy of Khasra could very well be filed by the State also, however no such attempt was made. The learned A.D.J, further held that the oral evidence of witnesses examined on behalf of the different claimants was consistent and oral evidence of Rajesh Chandra Pathak, amin, in the office of S.L.O., Hamirpur, was not reliable.
9. In my opinion, A.D.J, has correctly held that from the trace map, it was quite clear that since June 1983 government tube well No. 167 was in operation and irrigating entire acquired land.
10. In respect of the sale deed of 21.04.1986 relied upon by S.L.O., the A.D.J, further held that through the said land, large area of land containing different types of agricultural land quality wise was sold, hence it was not clear that what rate was fixed for which type of agricultural land.
11. The sale deed relied upon by the claimants was of 16.07.1984 executed by Pardesiya in favour of Smt. Jai Chand Wanshi. Through the said sale deed, an area of 0.61 acres was sold for Rs. 20,000/-.
12. The A.D.J, placed reliance upon the Supreme Court authority reported in Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Yamanappa Vasalingappa Chalwadi and held that market value should be determined on the basis of 10 years’ net income, if capitalization method was to be applied. The Supreme Court has taken the same view in Vitthalbhai Bakorbhai v. Executive Engineer, Capital Project. In this regard, it may also be noticed that even though in AIR 2000 SC 2619 Executive Director v. Sarat Chandra Bisoi, it has been held that 16 years’ multiplier may be applied, in case of agricultural land, however, in the said authority, it has also been clarified that the said multiplier of 16 years is applicable only in Orissa.
13. Reference Court/A.D.J. held that all the witnesses of the claimants stated that 18 to 20 maunds of wheat per bigha was grown by them in the acquired land, when it belonged to them and market value of the said wheat at the relevant time was about Rs. 1500/-.
14. In the reference giving rise to First Appeal No. 511 of 1996, claimants’ witness Shyama Charan Nigam stated that two crops in a year were grown by him in the land, which was acquired. He further stated that to his knowledge two crops were not shown to have been grown in the Khasara. However, the witness did not state that what crops were grown by him and what was the cost of the yield and what expenses were incurred by him.
15. In the reference giving rise to First Appeal No. 512 of 1996, Ram Prakash was examined as witness of the claimants. 8.82 acres of his land was acquired. He stated that crop yield in his land was about 18 to 20 maunds. He further stated that when possession was taken by the State, his wheat crop was standing on the acquired land.
16. In the reference giving rise to First Appeal No. 513 of 1996, statement of Aydhya Singh was recorded on behalf of the claimants. 8.82 acres of his land was acquired. He stated that two crops were grown by him in the acquired land, i.e. Urd in Kharif and wheat in Rabi. He further stated that yield of Urd was 1 quintal per bigha and wheat 6 to 8 quintal per bigha. He further stated that he did no remember the rate of the wheat in 1986-87.
In the reference giving rise to First Appeal No. 514 of 1996, statement of 17. Nathu was recorded on behalf of the claimants. 8.84 acres of his land was acquired. He stated that he produced wheat crop in his land and the yield was 18 maunds per bigha.
18. In the reference giving rise to First Appeal No. 515 of 1996, statement of Maheswari was recorded on behalf of the claimants. About 3 acres of his land was acquired. He stated that 20 to 22 maunds per bigha wheat was grown in his land.
19. In the reference giving rise to First Appeal No. 516 of 1996, statement of Raghu Raj Singh was recorded on behalf of the claimants. The area of the acquired land belonging to him was 24 bigha. He stated that the yield of crop in his land was 18 to 20 maunds per bigha. He further stated that every year he sowed wheat in the land in dispute.
20. In the reference giving rise to First Appeal No. 517 of 1996, statement of Ram Shanker was recorded on behalf of the claimants. 22 bighas of land belonging to him was acquired. He stated that wheat was grown in his land and yield was 20 maunds per bigha.
21. In the reference giving rise to First Appeal No. 518 of 1996, statement, of Mauniya was recorded on behalf of the claimants. 15 bighas of land belonging to him was acquired. He also stated that wheat was grown in his land and yield was 20 maunds per bigha.
22. In the reference giving rise to First Appeal No. 519 of 1996, statement of Phuiawa was recorded on behalf of the claimants. He also stated that in the acquired land Ram Sajeewan (whose land had been acquired) grew wheat and yield was 18 to 20 maunds per bigha.
23. In the reference giving rise to First Appeal No. 520 of 1996, statement of Kallu Ram was recorded on behalf of the claimants. 8 bighas of land belonging to him and his brothers was acquired. He stated that yield of the crop in the land in dispute was 20 maunds per bigha and at the time of taking possession, wheat crop was standing thereupon. In his cross-examination, he clearly admitted that only one crop was grown in the land.
24. In the reference giving rise to First Appeal No. 521 of 1996, statements of Kamtu and Gajraj were recorded on behalf of the claimants. Kamtu stated that in his land, which had been acquired, three crops were grown. The area of the acquired land belonging to him was 4.4 acres. He further stated that his land was just adjacent to the tube-well. He stated that Urd were also grown by him in the land in dispute. The other witness in the said case was Gajraj. He stated that two crops were grown in the acquired land of Kamtu, i.e. Urd and wheat. He further stated that 15 maunds per bigha wheat was grown in the acquired land and total yield of Urd was about 34 maunds in the total land.
25. In the reference giving rise to First Appeal No. 522 of 1996, statement of Jagat Singh was recorded on behalf of the claimants. He stated that wheat was grown in his acquired land and the yield was about 25 per bigha.
26. In the reference giving rise to First Appeal No. 523 of 1996, ntatements of Gayadin and Naththu were recorded on behalf of the claimants. Gayadin stated that 13.46 acres of his land was acquired. He further stated that at the time of acquisition, wheat and gram crops were landing of his land and yield was 18 to 20 maunds per bigha. The other witness in the said case was Naththu. He stated that wheat was grown in the land in dispute and the yield was 18 to 20 maunds per bigha.
27. In the reference giving rise to First Appeal No. 524 of 1996, statement of Dulla was recorded on behalf of the claimants. The area of the acquired land belonging to him was 10 to 11 bighas. He stated that the crop yield in her, land was 18 to 20 maunds per bigha and at the time of acquisition, wheat crop was standing over the land in dispute.
28. In the reference giving rise to First Appeal No. 525 of 1996, statements of Kamtu and Chunni Singh were recorded on behalf of the claimants. Kamtu stated that two crops in a year were grown in his land, which was acquired and yield of the wheat was 18 to 20 maunds per bigha. The area of the land belonging to him was 6 acres. He stated that tube-well was 100 to 125 yards away from his land. The other witness in the said case was Chunni Singh. He stated that Kamtu grew two crops in his land.
29. In the reference giving rise to First Appeal No. 526 of 1996, statements of Ram Sewak and Bare Lal were recorded on behalf of the claimants. 8 to 9 bighas of land of Ram Sewak was acquired. He stated that wheat was grown in his land and the yield was 20 maunds per bigha.
30. In the reference giving rise to First Appeal No. 527 of 1996, statement of Randhir Singh was recorded on behalf of the claimants. The area of the acquired land belonging to him was 14 bighas. He stated that the yield in his land was about 20 maunds per bigha and at the time of acquisition, wheat crop was standing over the land in dispute.
31. In the reference giving rise to First Appeal No. 528 of 1996, statement of Radha Charan was recorded on behalf of the claimants. The area of the acquired land belonging to him was 10 acres. He stated that 18 to 20 maunds per bigha wheat was grown in his land.
32. In the reference giving rise to last appeal, i.e. First Appeal No. 529 of 1996, statement of Rajbir Singh was recorded on behalf of the claimants. Two acres of his land was acquired. He stated that 20 maunds per bigha wheat was grown in his land.
33. From the above statements, it is clear that apart from the land, which was subject matter of First Appeals No. 521 of 1996 and 525 of 1996, (sic) all other acquired lands, only one crop was grown in a year. It is clear from the oral statements that two crops were grown only in those lands, which were (sic) just adjacent to the tube-well. The Learned A.D.J, has not taken into consideration the expenses, which are incurred in growing crop. The Supreme Court in several authorities has held that normally 50% expenses are incurred in growing crops (i.e. 50% of the amount for which the crop is sold). In this regard, reference may be made to Land Acquisition Officer, A P. v. K. Ramkrishna Rao and Anr. 2007 AIR SCW 1145 (However, in the said authority it has also been held that if the land has got fruit growing trees then the expenses would be much less than 50%). Several previous authorities of the Supreme Court have also been considered in the aforesaid authority.
34. In my opinion, Reference Court/IIIrd A.D.J., Hamirpur wrongly refused to place any reliance upon the sale deed relied upon by the claimants, i.e. sale deed dated 16.07.1984 executed by Pardesiya in favour of Smt. Jai Chand Vansi. Through the said sale deed an area of 0.61 acres war, sold for Rs. 20,000/-, i.e. @ Rs. 33333/- per acre. Copy of the said sale deed is on Page-139 of the paper book in the First Appeal No. 511 of 1996. The description of the purchaser in the said sale deed is as Smt. Jai Chand Vansi, wife of Raj Chand Vansi, Proprietor Anurag Mills. From the said description, it is clear that the property was purchased for the purposes of the mill/factory. In the boundaries of the sale deed, it is mentioned that there is road on the western side and Electricity Power House on the northern side. Land in dispute was acquired for establishing industrial area/estate. It is mentioned in the oral evidence of different claimants that some factories were already there near the acquired land before its acquisition. In view of this, I am of the opinion that market value of the acquired land could not be determined only on the basis of agricultural yield as apart from agricultural potential, the acquired land had industrial potential also at the time of acquisition. However, the sale deed executed by Pardesiya, could not be relied upon without any deduction for the reason that the land covered by the said sale deed was just adjacent to road and power house while the acquired land was about one kilometer away from the said land. Die second reason is that the area sold through the sale deed was not much big, hence some deduction was warranted. On the other hand, as the said sale deed was executed about three years before the acquisition, hence some enhancement in the rate for these three years was also warranted.
35. After providing a deduction of 30% and thereafter granting increase of 10% per year in valuation the approximate rate will come to Rs. 30,000/- per acre. (If the valuation is to be determined on the basis of agricultural yield, then it will be half of the amount awarded by the A.D.J, on the ground that 50% of price of the yield) will have to be deducted as cost of cultivation.
36. Accordingly, I hold that the market value of the land at the time of Section 4, notification was Rs. 30,000/- per acre.
37. It may be mentioned that in all the appeals, claimants have also filed cross-objections seeking enhancement in the market value/compensation.
38. Accordingly, all the first appeals are allowed in part. Compensation awarded @ Rs. 35,000/- per acre is reduced to Rs. 30,000/- per acre. All the cross-objections are dismissed.