JUDGMENT
1. All these appeals are delayed by 18 days in the matter of refiling. These appeals had been filed against the common judgment and decree dated 9-7-1999 passed by the District Judge, Mandya, whereby he disposed off Land Acquisition Appeal Nos. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 of 1999 by one common judgment. All these appeals have been filed on 8-10-1999 and according to office note, they were in time. But, along with them, the certified copy of the judgment and decree of the reference Court had not been filed. So they were returned for being refiled along with the certified copy of the judgment and decree of the reference Court.
2. Under the rules, as contained in Chapter XII of the High Court Rules, it has been provided that if there are any defects, the registry
may direct the Advocate concerned to remove the defect and may fix time within which the papers may be represented after rectification of the defects. It further provides that the registry may extend the period from time to time. But the limit for extension is also prescribed that it shall not be extended beyond the period of six weeks in aggregate from the date of defect being put on the notice board. So, it appears that upto the period of six weeks, the defect can be removed. But no further time can be granted by the registry. Rule 17 provides that if the defect is not removed, then papers shall be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice or such other Judge as he may nominate for the purpose for orders. The appeal had to be refiled by 27-11-1999. But, it had not been refiled by 27-11-1999. It had really been refiled along with the certified copy of the decree in the matter of MSA. No. 269 of 1999 and it had been refiled along with the electrostate copy of the certified copy in other appeals on 15-12-1999. The appellants’ Counsel concedes that there was 18 days delay. It is stated that copy was not available till 4-12-1999. From a perusal of the certified copy and endorsement of the office also it appears that copy was delivered on 4-12-1999. The appellants after getting the copy on 4-12-1999, contacted their Counsel and appeal was refiled on 15-12-1999. As they could not get the certified copy by 27-11-1999, it appears that there appears reasonable cause for not filing by 27-12-1999. There appears sufficient cause to condone the delay. No doubt, certified copy had been filed in one appeal while electrostate copy of the judgment of the reference Court had been filed in all other appeals. The certified copy of the award of the Trial Court has no doubt not been filed in all other cases. But the electrostate copy of the judgment of the reference Court had been filed in all the appeals except in MSA No. 269 of 1999 in which the certified copy had been filed. This is a fit case in which delay in refiling can be condoned as all the appeals arise from common judgment and common award, the filing of certified copy in other appeals is exempted and the electrostate copies are accepted. The delay having been condoned, I asked the learned Counsels for the parties to argue on merits.
3. It has been contended by the appellants’ Counsel that compensation awarded is not in accordance with the principles of law and it is too less. The appellants’ Counsel contended that multiplier of ‘5’ which has been applied in the present case to the product value minus cost of cultivation i.e., expenditure is too low and it is not in accordance with law. The learned Counsel contended that in many cases the multiplier of ’20’ has been applied. He submitted that even if ’20’ may not be applied, but the multiplier of ‘5’ is on the lower side. He submitted that the multiplier of ’15’ or ’20’ may be applied.
4. The learned Government Counsel contended that looking to the potentiality of land no doubt in some cases of agricultural land, multiplier of ’10’ and ’12’ was applied, but the present case is not a fit case where multiplier of 12 or 15 or 20 to be applied.
5. I have applied my mind to the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties.
So far as the Appellate Court is concerned, it Has considered this aspect of the matter and observed as under. It will be appropriate to quote the following passage from the judgment of the Appellate Court:
“Admittedly the lands are dry lands. It has not been explained how the appellants are entitled for the assessment of the land at Rs. 1,500-00 per gunta. If the claimant claims compensation at the rate of Rs. 60,000-00 restricting the claim differing from Rs. 750-00 per guntas, there should be some material. Shivalingegowda said to have sold 13 guntas of land on 16-12-1988 for Rs. 24,000-00. That land is 100 mts, away from his land. Ultimately the nature of the crop grown by this witness is ragi, jowar and vegetables. According to him, he was earning Rs. 15,000-00 per acre. Then also for 30 guntas of land giving deductions to the cost of cultivation it will be around Rs. 6,000-00 per acre. Even applying multiplier ‘5’ because it is a dry land and not a wet land, it comes to Rs. 30,000-00. It was not pointed out how the amount of Rs. 750-00 per gunta arrived at by the Court below is unreasonable and the Court ought to have assessed at any other rate other than Rs. 750-00 per gunta has not been substantiated the grounds under which such assessment of calculation is wrong. I do not find any reason to interfere with the order and the appeals fail”.
These observations clearly reveals that the Appellate Court after taking into view that the land in question is a dry land, assessed the annual income from the land after deductions of the cost of cultivation found that the annual income from the land was Rs. 6,000-00 per acre. This annual income has been assessed keeping in view the nature of the land as dry land. Then it applied the multiplier of ‘5’. Even if the land is dry, it does not mean that you can make double deductions that, first you say the production is less and assess the annual income on lesser side and then you say that the multiplier should also be reduced. No doubt in some old cases multiplier of ’20’ even has been applied. But a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer, Sagar v K.S. Ramachandra Rao and Others, has adopted the multiplier of ’10’. The learned Government Counsel also submitted that multiplier of ’10’ no doubt had been applied in very many cases. When the land is acquired, compensation has to be paid. Every effort must be made that no injustice is done to the person whose land is being compulsorily acquired and he may be provided the best possible compensation to do the justice. Multiplier of ‘5’ is on too lower side. I am of the view, that, as per the above Division Bench decision of this Court and in view of the view expressed in the under mentioned Supreme Court decisions, to apply multiplier of ’10’ (ten) to annual yield, after deduction of cost of cultivation/production, will be just and proper. The following are the Supreme Court decisions in which in cases of agricultural land multiplier of ’10’ (ten) has been held to be best, reasonable, just and proper.-
(a) Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer v Yamanappa Basalingappa Chalwadi.
(b) K. Posayya and Others v Special Tahsildar (para 5).
(c) State of Gujarat and Others v Rama Rana and Others (para 5).
If multiplier of ’10’ is applied to the annual product per cost as assessed by the Trial Court i.e., Rs. 6,000-00 per acre, then compensation to be awarded for the land would come to Rs. 60,000-00 per acre. Following the Division Bench’s decision in the above cited case, I apply the multiplier of ’10’.
6. Thus, all appeals are hereby allowed and it is directed that the appellants will be entitled to the compensation at the rate of Rs. 6,000-00 per acre per year income multiplied by ’10’ i.e., Rs. 60,000-00 per acre. The appellants will be entitled to other benefits as per the provisions of law under the Land Acquisition Act on the above as well. Let the copy of the judgment be placed in each appeal.