1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA First Appeal No. 126/2001 1. State of Goa, Rep. By Special Land Acquisition Officer (N), Mapusa-Goa. 2. Executive Engineer, Works Division III, Irrigation Department, New Goa Tillari Irrigation Development Corporation, Near Tivim Industrial Estate, Bardez-Goa. ... APPELLANTS V e r s u s Shri Pundlik Govind Narulkar, Hassapur-Allorns, Pernem-Goa. … RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Manish Salkar, A. G. A. for appellants Mr. M. S. Sonak, Advocate for respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: S. A. BOBDE, J DATE: 23 rd June, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The only contention raised by Mr. Salkar, the learned A. G. A. for the appellants, is that while effecting the capitalization method, the Court proceeded to compute on the basis of gross yield 2 of the property; whereas, according to law, it should have taken into account the net yield of the property. Mr. Salkar, learned A. G. A. relied on judgment of the Supreme Court in Airports Authority of India ..vs.. Satyagopal Roy and others.; AIR 2002, Supreme Court 1423, where the Supreme Court has clearly laid down that the capitalization is the process of converting net income of the property into its equivalent capital value. 3. However, Mr. Sonak, learned counsel for the respondent, rightly pointed out that though report of the Valuer at one place refers to the gross income, the Valuer has made calculation on the basis of net income and it is only the calculation on the basis of net income that have been adopted by Court in paragraph 12. The Court in para 12 has observed as follows:- “12. .....As per the applicant, the yield of paddy was 25 quintals and for an area of 9224 sq. mtrs which is paddy portion, the rate of paddy per quintal was Rs. 350/- which would work out to Rs. 8750/-.....” Though the Court later says that this is on the gross produce of Paddy, it is obvious from the Valuer's report that the said figures pertain to the net yield of the Paddy. 3 In this view of the matter, there is no reason to interfere in the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. S. A. BOBDE, J. kahale