Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER versus VIRUPAX SHANKAR NADAGOUDA

Decided
21 August 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 25 · 1996 INSC 915
Also cited as
  • (1996) 6 SCC 124 (7 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

Cited in 3 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation @ Rs. 3,500 . per acre for bagayat land and for the rest of the land Girayat dry) at Rs. 960 per acre. On reference, the civil Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs. 10,000 per acre for bagayat lands in which sugar cane was grown and for the rest of the land he granted at Rs. 4000 per acre. The High Court of Karnataka in the impugned judgment dated September 9, 1988 confirmed the same. Thus these appeals by special leave.

p. 25, margin F

Two contentions have been raised by Shri Veerappa, learned counsel for the appellant. The Reference Court had wrongly applied multiplier of 15 years in computing the annual yield. This Court in Land Acquisition Officer v. P. Veerabhadrappa Etc. Etc., (1984] 2 SCR 386 followed in other judgments, had held that 10 years' multiplier would b_e the proper method of calculation of the compensation.

pp. 25–26, margin G

Accordingly 10 years' multiplier should be applied in determing compensation under Section 23 (1) of the land Acquisition Act, 1894. He also contended that separate compensation granted the well in the sum Rs. 13,000 is not valid in law. When the owner of the land is getting the water drawn from the well to raise the crops and when he claims compensation for the land on the basis of the yield, he cannot separately claim compensation for the well. Therefore, the reference Court obviously was in error in granting compensation for the well at Rs. 13,000. It is accordingly set aside. 10 years' multiplier should be applied to the annual value of the yield for calculation of compensation under Section 23(1) of the Act. The referenc1~ Court accordingly is directed to recalculate the compensation under these principles and determine the compensation and pay over the same to the respondents. If the amount has already been recovered, it would be open to the appellant to recover the balance amount.

p. 26, margin A

The appeals are accordingly allowed. No costs. T.N.A. Appeals allowed.

p. 26, margin D