Bombay High Court
Thr State Of Maharashtra vs 1. Shri. Laxman Nathu Mhatre And Ors. on 9 September, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:37538
FA 1637-09 & Cr Obj
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1637 OF 2009
WITH
CROSS OBJECTION (ST) NO. 11554 OF 2019
The State of Maharashtra, SLAO, ]
Metro Centre No.3, Panvel, Raigad. ] ...Appellant.
Versus
1. Laxman Nathu Mhatre. ]
2. Dhamubai Yadav Mhatre. ]
3. Thakubai Nathu Mhatre (Deceased) ]
R/o: Dapoli, Tal-Panvel, Dist-Raigad. ] ...Respondents.
----------
Mr. A.R. Patil, AGP for Appellant-State.
Mr. Shriram S. Kulkarni and Mr. Gaurav Ugale for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
----------
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.
Reserved on : July 10, 2025.
Pronounced on : September 9, 2025.
[Through Video Conferencing].
JUDGMENT :
1. The present Appeal and the Cross-Objection impugns the Judgment and Award dated 26th July, 2006, passed by the Reference Court in LAR No.1562 of 2000 filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. [for short, "L.A. Act, 1894"]. Common submissions were advanced by learned counsel for the parties. For sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their status before the Reference Court as Claimant and Opponent.
2. The Claimant is the owner of land bearing Survey No.19/5 area sa_mandawgad/ Patil _SR 1 of 21 FA 1637-09 & Cr Obj 0.24 Are, S.No.26/3 area 23.5 Are, S.No.33/4 area 20 Are, S.No.36/5 area 37 Are, S.No.87/2 area 63 Are, S.No.90/1A area 28.4 Are, S.No.112/17 area 11 Are, total admeasuring Hectare 2.06.9 Are including 374 Alphonso Mango Trees and 3 Raival Mango Trees, situated at Dapoli, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad.
3. The Notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act, 1894 was issued on 3rd February, 1970 for acquisition of the land for the purpose of "Planned Development and Utilisation of said lands in Trans Harbour Panvel and Trans Thana Creek area for Industrial Commercial and residential purpose". Section 6 notification was published on 25th September, 1972 and Award under Section 11 was passed on 27th June, 1986. Being aggrieved by the compensation awarded, the Claimant sought reference under Section 18 of L.A. Act, 1894 before the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alibag being L.A.R No.1562 of 2000.
4. The impugned Award of the Reference Court notes that the Claimant was aggrieved by the inadequate amount of compensation awarded for the land and non payment of separate compensation for the mango trees standing on the land at the relevant time. The Claimant demanded compensation for the land @ Rs 60/ per square meter. It was claimed that the acquired land are abutting Mumbai -
sa_mandawgad/Patil SR 2 of 21
FA 1637-09 & Cr Obj
Panvel-Uran High way and all amenities like school, hospital, post office etc are available in Panvel City and Village Dapoli. The village is connected with State Transport buses. The mango trees were yielding income upto Rs 500/ and by adopting capitalised method, the value was Rs.10,000/ per Alphonso Mango tree which were 374 in number and Rs 8,000/ per tree for the three Raival trees. The compensation claimed was Rs 49,14,121.11 with statutory benefits.
5. The claim came to be opposed by the SLAO contending that the Village Dapoli was dependent on agriculture and there were no civic amenities and no industrial unit near the village.
6. The Claimant examined himself, Valuer Ms.Manjiri Joshi and Mr. Prakash Prabhudesai-Officer of Agricultural Department. The Opponent did not lead any evidence. The documents produced by the Claimant includes the certified copy of valuation report of trees prepared by Deputy Director of Horticulture, Raigad-Exhibit 24.
7. In cross examination, the Claimant has admitted that the electricity and water facility were not readily available to acquired land, there is no industrial unit in the village, the approach road to the village is kaccha road, that State Transport bus does not come to their village and there is no building activity beyond gaothan in 70 years .
8. The Valuer produced the valuation report at Exhibit 28 and map sa_mandawgad/Patil SR 3 of 21 FA 1637-09 & Cr Obj at Exhibit 29. In Appendix I of the Valuation Report, various decisions of Reference Courts of comparative instances were set out. The Valuer deposed that the proper rate for the land should be Rs 25/ per square metre. She deposed that the acquired land has N.A. potentiality. In cross examination she has admitted that there was no non agricultural development in the year 1970, no industrial units and civic amenities, acquired land is not adjacent to Panvel Uran road, no building construction was in progress in the village in the year 1970 and the acquired land was landlocked. She has further admitted that the valuation report does not mention the area of the plots of the comparative sale instances and that the comparative plots were smaller and located within municipal limits.
9. The Officer of Agricultural Department produced the Valuation report prepared by the Deputy Director of Horticulture, Raigad in respect of fruit bearing trees at Exhibit 42.
10. The Reference Court examined the evidence on record and came to a finding that the compensation awarded was inadequate. The Reference Court considered the comparable decisions of the Reference Courts and awarded compensation in respect of the land at Rs.16/- per square metre. In so far as the valuation of trees is concerned, the Reference Court accepted the report at Exhibit 42 sa_mandawgad/Patil SR 4 of 21 FA 1637-09 & Cr Obj prepared by the Deputy Director of Horticultural Department and assessed the compensation of trees at Rs.11,12,190/. The Reference Court also corrected the error by factoring the 77 trees standing on land Survey No.19/5, which was missed by SLAO.
11. The Claimant seeks enhancement of compensation awarded by the Reference Court and the State Government is aggrieved by the enhancement of compensation by the Reference Court.
12. Mr. Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the Claimant submits that interim application has been filed by the Claimant under Order 41 Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for leading additional evidence to place on record the subsequent judgment passed by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court in respect of Village Koli-Kopar and Village Wadghar assessing the land as at Rs.25/- per square meter and for leading additional evidence of Valuer for producing additional valuation report, location and distance chart, map etc.
13. He submits that the acquired land was covered by fruit bearing trees and separate compensation is required to be awarded for fruit bearing trees. Drawing support from the decision in State of Maharashtra vs. Dharma Kana Katekar1, he submits that the subject land was from the same village and acquired for the same project. He 1 In First Appeal No.414 of 2005 with Cross-objection dated 3rd May, 2016.
sa_mandawgad/Patil SR 5 of 21
FA 1637-09 & Cr Obj
submits that this Court in the said case considered the yield of each mango tree at 1,000 fruits every year, which is also required to be applied in the present case. He has taken this Court in detail through the evidence of the Valuer and report of the Horticulture Department.
14. Mr. Kulkarni has tendered a chart calculating the compensation based on the computation in case of State of Maharashtra vs Dharma Kana Katekar (supra). He would emphasis that instead of leaving the Claimant to the remedy of execution, directions be issued by this Court to the SLAO to compute the compensation and deposit the same in this Court considering that the acquisition is of the year 1970. He would submit that the decision in the case of State of Maharashtra vs Dharma Kana Katekar (supra), granting compensation on the basis of the yield has not been challenged by the State Government and has thus attained finality.
15. Upon query by this Court, Mr. Kulkarni would fairly concede that in the instant case the entire acquired land is covered by fruit bearing trees and therefore compensation will have to be awarded on the basis of yield and no compensation can be claimed for land separately. He submits that in view of the said position, the Interim Application would not survive for consideration.
sa_mandawgad/Patil SR 6 of 21
FA 1637-09 & Cr Obj
16. Per contra, Mr. Patil, learned AGP would submit a comparative chart computing the compensation on the basis of yield of 150 fruits every year. He submits that the Claimant has computed the compensation on erroneous basis that all 377 trees will have good healthy life for the next 30 years and would have optimum productivity for the entire period of 30 years with zero expenses. He submits that the mango trees start giving fruits after 8 to 10 years and are impacted by uncertain weather conditions, rain fall etc. Mr. Patil would submit that expenses for maintenance of trees on account of regular pruning, fertilization, pest etc as well as cost of transportation is required to be considered. He submits that out of the net income from the trees, 1/3rd deduction is required to be made. He submits that as far as the mango trees are concerned, by taking into consideration the yield of 150 fruits per year, the compensation from 1986 till 2003 would be Rs.44,88,000/- and whereas for the Raival Mango trees would be Rs.45,000/- and by deducting 1/3rd from the said amount, the compensation payable for the Alphonso trees would be Rs.29,92,000/- and for Raival trees would be Rs.30,000/-.
17. In rejoinder, Mr. Kulkarni would submit that the negative factors cannot be considered because the same was not considered by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of State of Maharashtra vs Dharma sa_mandawgad/Patil SR 7 of 21 FA 1637-09 & Cr Obj Kana Katekar (supra), and there is no challenge to the said judgment. He would further submit that there is no evidence led by the State Government to support the contention of 1/3rd deduction. He would further submit that the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Dharma Kana Katekar (supra), arose out of LAR No. 36 of 2003, in which the Claimant had examined an expert Shrinivas Godbole, who in his evidence has given the yield of each Alphonso mango tree at Rs.7,000/- to Rs.8,000/- per year excluding expenses, which was not accepted by the Learned Single Judge in entirety. He would further point out that the Reference Court held that the Claimant must be getting Rs.2,500/- from each Alphonso mango tree and Rs.1,500/- per year from Raival mango tree and fixed compensation accordingly, which was interfered by the Co-ordinate Bench by taking judicial note of the erstwhile market rate of Mangoes and jamun. He would further submit that in the case of Ram Kishan vs. State of Haryana2, the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the relevance of the prior awards and held that the previous award has to be considered as piece of evidence. He submits that the decision in the case of Dharma Kana Katekar (supra), is required to be considered as piece of evidence as the lands are similarly situated.
18. The facts of the case and the submissions canvassed would give 2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 715 sa_mandawgad/Patil SR 8 of 21 FA 1637-09 & Cr Obj rise to the following points for determination:
(I) Whether the compensation awarded by the Reference Court requires interference?
(II) Whether the Claimants are entitled to separate compensation for land and for fruit bearing trees?
(iii) Whether the capitalisation yield method adopted by the Co-
ordinate Bench in State of Maharashtra v. Dharma Kana Katekar (supra) can form the basis for assessing the compensation in the present case?
19. In the present case, by the Award dated 27 th June, 1986, the SLAO awarded compensation for the land at Rs 33,493.12 in addition to statutory benefits and did not award any compensation for the fruit bearing trees. In Reference, the Claimants claimed enhanced compensation for the land and separate compensation for the fruit bearing trees.
20. Dealing first with the issue as to whether the Claimant is entitled to separate compensation for the land and for fruit bearing trees, though Mr. Kulkarni has fairly conceded that compensation be assessed on basis of yield, it would be appropriate to place the issue to rest. In the case of Ambya Kalya Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra 3 one of the issues before the Hon'ble Apex Court was where compensation was awarded for the land, whether no compensation 3 (2011) 9 SCC 325.
sa_mandawgad/Patil SR 9 of 21
FA 1637-09 & Cr Obj
can be awarded for the trees or Well separately. The Hon'ble Apex Court noted the decision of State of Harayana v. Gurcharan Singh4 which had held as under:
"3. It is settled law that the Collector or the court who determines the compensation for the land as well as fruit- bearing trees cannot determine them separately. The compensation is to the value of the acquired land. The market value is determined on the basis of the yield. Then necessarily applying suitable multiplier, the compensation needs to be awarded. Under no circumstances the court should allow the compensation on the basis of the nature of the land as well as fruit-bearing trees. In other words, market value of the land is determined twice over; once on the basis of the value of the land and again on the basis of the yield got from the fruit- bearing trees. The definition of land includes the benefits which accrue from the land as defined in Section 3(a) of the Act. After compensation is determined on the basis of the value of the land as distinct from the income applying suitable multiplier, then the trees would be valued only as firewood and necessary compensation would be given. In this case, the High Court did not adopt this procedure. We have looked into the figures furnished in the judgment of the High Court of the amount awarded by the Officer himself. He too, while determining the compensation at the rate of Rs 12,240 per acre on the basis of the yield, applied a multiplier of more than 8 years. Under no circumstances, the multiplier should be more than an 8 years' multiplier, as it is a settled law of this Court in a catena of decisions that when the market value is determined on the basis of the yield from the trees or a plantation, 8 years' multiplier shall be the appropriate multiplier. For agricultural land 12 years' multiplier shall be a suitable multiplier."
21. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ambya Kalya Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra (supra) held that if the land value had been determined with reference to the sale statistics or compensation awarded for a nearby vacant land then necessarily the trees will have to be valued separately, but if the value of the land has been determined on the 4 1995 Supp (2) SCC 637.
sa_mandawgad/Patil SR 10 of 21
FA 1637-09 & Cr Obj
basis of sale statistics or compensation awarded for an orchard, that is land with fruit bearing trees, then there is no question of again adding the value of the trees. Further, if the market value has been determined by capitalising the income with reference to yield, then also the question of making any addition either for the land or for the trees separately does not arise.
22. In the instant case, Mr. Kulkarni would seek to rely on the capitalisation of yield method adopted by the Co-ordinate Bench in Dharma Kana Katekar (supra). Applying the settled principles as the Claimant seeks determination of compensation on parity with compensation awarded for land having fruit bearing trees, no compensation can be awarded for land separately and trees separately.
23. There is no factual dispute as regards the existence of 374 Alphonso Mango Trees and 3 Raival Mango Trees on the acquired land. The decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in State of Maharashtra vs Dharma Kana Katekar (supra) was not challenged by the State Government and has attained finality. The acquired land in present case and the subject land in the said decision are from the same village Dapoli and acquired by the same notification for the same purpose.
sa_mandawgad/Patil SR 11 of 21
FA 1637-09 & Cr Obj
24. In that case, the Claimant had examined the agricultural officer of Zilla Parishad, Raigad who deposed that each Alphonso mango tree gives yield worth Rs 7,000 to Rs 8,000/ per year excluding expenses and Raival mango tree gives yield worth Rs 2,000 to Rs 3,000/ per year. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court did not accept the evidence of the agricultural officer and took judicial note of the erstwhile market rate of mangoes and jamun. The Learned Single Judge held that the yield of Alphonso Mango tree would be 1,000 fruits per year. Based on the capitalisation of yield method, the Co-ordinate Bench considered the price of one Alphonso mango at Re.1/- for the first 5 years and at Rs.5/- for the next 5 yeas and thereafter at Rs.10/- for the next 5 years. Insofar as the Raival mango trees are concerned, the Court determined the valuation at Rs.700/- per tree per year for the first 5 years and at Rs.1,500/- per tree per year for the next 5 years and thereafter at Rs.2,500/- per tree per year for the next 5 years.
25. The relevance of prior Awards was considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ram Kishan vs State of Harayana (supra) and it was held that the compensation cannot be determined by blindly following the previous award/judgment and has to be considered only a piece of evidence. What the Hon'ble Apex Court cautioned was that the Courts should not be swayed by the misconception of equality and fair treatment in the absence of similar nature and situation of land sa_mandawgad/Patil SR 12 of 21 FA 1637-09 & Cr Obj which would cause more injustice and tantamount to giving equal treatment in case of unequals.
26. Applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court to the facts of present case, the order of Co-ordinate Bench arose out of LAR No. 36 of 2003 which was considered as comparable instance by the Reference Court. There is no factual dispute raised by the Opponent-State Government that the acquired lands forming subject matter of LAR No 36 of 2003 is not comparable instance. The lands of LAR No 36 of 2003 and present lands are from the same village and it is settled that wherever direct evidence i.e. the instances from same village are available then it is most desirable that the Court should consider those instances. (See The State of Maharashtra vs Yashwant Kahnu Shirsath5). The factual position of Alphonso and Raival mango trees standing on the lands in LAR No 36 of 2003 and the instant subject lands indicates similarity of nature of land and the decision in Dharma Kana Katekar(supra) can be safely considered as comparable instance for determining compensation in the present case.
27. In the case of LAR No. 36 of 2003, the Claimant had led evidence of expert, which was not accepted by the Co-ordinate Bench in its entirety. Applying the principle of "guesstimation", the Co- 5 (2007) (109) BOM.L.R. 1511.
sa_mandawgad/Patil SR 13 of 21
FA 1637-09 & Cr Obj
ordinate Bench took judicial note of the erstwhile market rate of the mangoes and by applying the capitalisation of yield method for period of 15 years, computed the compensation. In the present case, the Claimant and Opponent has furnished rival charts of compensation as under:
Particulars. State's Computation Claimants' Computation Each mango tree gives 300 fruits Each mango tree gives 2000 fruits per year. As it frcutify alternate per year. As it frcutify alternate year consider 150 fruits. year consider 1000 fruits.
1986-1991 Price of one Mango -Rs.1 Price of one Mango -Rs.1 Price of 374 mango trees (1 Price of 374 mango trees (1 year).
year). Computation for 5 years.
Computation for 5 years.
Computation:
Computation: 1000 X 1 = 1000.
150 X 1 = 150. 1000 X 374= 374000/-
150 X 374= 56100/-
56100 X 5 = 18,70,000/-
56100 X 5 = 2,80,500/-
1992-1997. Price of one Mango - Rs.5/- Price of one Mango - Rs.5/-
Price of 374 mango trees (1 Price of 374 mango trees (1 year). year).
Computation for 5 years.
Computation for 5 years.
Computation:
Computation: 1000 X 5 = 5000
150 X 5 = 750 5000 X 374 = 18,70,000/-
750 X 374 = 2,80,500/-
18,70,000 X 5= 93,50,000/-.
2,80,500 X 5= 14,02,500/-.
1998-2003 Price of one Mango - Rs.10 Price of one Mango - Rs.10
Price of 374 mango trees (1 Price of 374 mango trees (1 year). year).
Computation for 5 years.
Computation for 5 years.
Computation:
Computation: 1000 X 10 = 10000
sa_mandawgad/Patil SR 14 of 21
FA 1637-09 & Cr Obj
150 X 10 = 1500 10000 X 374 = 37,40,000
1500 X 374 = 561000
37,40,000 X 5 = 1,87,00,000/-
5,61,000 X 5 = 28,05,000/-
TOTAL Rs.44,88,000 Rs.2,99,20,000
28. The submission of rival chart by the State Government constitutes an acceptance that the decision of State of Maharashtra v. Dharma Kana Katekar (supra) adopting the capitalisation of yield method can form basis for computation in the present case. The chart by the State Government accepts the price fixed for each mango as fixed in Dharma Kana Katekar (supra). The only discrepancy is the yield per year as the rival chart considers the yield at 150 fruits per year. There is no material placed on record by the Opponent State to establish the basis on which the yield was computed at 150 fruits per year and no basis for reduction of price of Raival trees. The Co- ordinate Bench in State of Maharashtra v. Dharma Kana Katekar (supra) did not accept that each mango tree fructify 4,000 fruits per year and has taken into consideration 1,000 fruits per year. The Co- ordinate Bench considered the evidence of the valuer therein and came to a finding about the yield, which has now attained finality. To disturb the said finding, there is no material produced by State Government that the yield considered in Dharma Kana Katekar (supra) cannot form basis in the present case. The submission of Mr. sa_mandawgad/Patil SR 15 of 21 FA 1637-09 & Cr Obj Patil that the yield would be affected by uncertain weather conditions, rainfall etc was also considered by the Co-ordinate Bench in Dharma Kana Katekar (supra). It needs to be noted that in case of fruit bearing trees, the yield per year is usually averaged out due to increase or decrease in the yield dependent on the various factors impacting the produce.
29. In my view, there is no basis to compute the yield at 150 fruits per year and the yield considered by the Co-ordinate Bench can form the basis in the present case. There is no reason to deny the present Claimant the same benefit which was granted to the Claimant in State of Maharashtra v. Dharma Kana Katekar (supra) considering the similarity of the lands.
30. The Co-ordinate Bench in case of Dharma Kana Katekar (supra) capitalised the yield for 15 years by considering the life of the mango trees at average 60 years. Mr. Patil, learned AGP has rightly relied upon the decision of Shaik Imambi vs Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) Telegu Ganga Project (supra). In the facts of that case, the Land Acquisition Officer has considered the the remainder of fruit bearing life of the lime trees as 14 years and assessed the compensation accordingly. The High Court while enhancing the compensation applied the multiplier of 10 to the enhanced amount.
sa_mandawgad/Patil SR 16 of 21
FA 1637-09 & Cr Obj
The Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the multiplier of 10 and held that the consistent view taken is that the standard multiplier should be 10 and that in special circumstances based on specific evidence regarding the nature, standard, condition of the orchard, the Court may apply the higher multiplier of 12 or 13 or lower multiplier of 8.
31. In Special Land Acquisition, Davangere v. P.Veerabhadarappa6, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that when capitalization method for valuation is applied, proper multiplier should be 10. Similarly, in Special Land Acquisition Officer vs. Virupax Shankar Nadagouda 7, relying on P. Veerabhadarappa (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court determined compensation on the basis of 10 years' multiplier. Again, in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Malik Sartaj Wali Khan 8, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that computation of compensation for determination of market value may be carried out on yield basis and multiplier of 10 should be applied.
32. In State of Harayana v. Gurcharan Singh (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that under no circumstance, the multiplier should be more than 8 years multiplier. When the market value is determined on the basis of the yield from trees or plantation 8 years multiplier shall be appropriate multiplier. For agricultural land 12 6 (1984) 2 SCC 120.
7 (1996) 6 SCC 124.
8 (2001) 10 SCC 660.
sa_mandawgad/Patil SR 17 of 21
FA 1637-09 & Cr Obj
years multiplier shall be suitable multiplier. In the said decision at paragraph 4 it has been held as follows :
"4. In this case, the Collector applied more than 8 years' multiplier and awarded compensation. The High Court also has not adverted to this aspect of the matter. The High Court committed error of law in further enhancing the compensation. Considered from this perspective, since we cannot interfere with the award of the Collector, though the Collector had committed palpable error of law in separately awarding the compensation to the land as well as fruit bearing trees, it is an offer which cannot be disturbed because of S. 25 of the Act. The rate of compensation should have been less than what the Collector has awarded, we cannot reduce the amount less than the amount offered by the Collector, yet we have to hold that the Collector, Civil Court and the High Court should have applied 8 years multiplier and determined the compensation. They awarded much more than what the claimant would justly and fairly be entitled to. Therefore, further enhancement of 60% by the High Court on the basis of the Price Index is clearly illegal."
33. Same view has been taken in Assistant Commissioner-cum- Land Acquisition Officer V. S.T. Pompanna Setty 9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in that held that normally in cases where compensation is awarded on yield basis, multiplier of 10 is considered, proper and appropriate. The decision of Navanath v. State of Maharashtra10 held in paragraph 40 as under:
"40. Indisputably, valuation of agricultural land on the one hand and valuation of orchard and forest on the other would stand on different footings. Whereas in the former case, the known legal principles, particularly with reference to the exemplars will have to be applied, in the latter a different principle, namely, multiplier of eight or ten, as the case may be, on the basis of the multiplicand, namely, yield from the trees or plantation would be applicable. (See Kerala SEB v. Livisha where multiplier of eight was used and Asstt. 9 AIR 2005 SC 749.
10 (2009) 14 SCC 480.
sa_mandawgad/Patil SR 18 of 21
FA 1637-09 & Cr Obj
Commr.-cum-Land Acquisition Officer vs. S.T. Pompanna Setty where multiplier of ten was used.) In some decisions of this Court even higher multiplier was used."
34. The above decisions would indicate that the Hon'ble Apex Court has re-inforced and re-emphasised that normally in cases where compensation is awarded on yield basis, multiplier of 10 is considered proper and appropriate. In Dharma Kana Katekar (supra), the Learned Single Judge applied the multiplier of 15, which is on higher side. The Learned Single Judge has assessed the compensation and enhanced the price of each mango every five years for 15 years. In the first five years, the price of per mango was assessed at Re.1/-, for next five years at Rs 5, and the last five years at Rs.10/-. Applying the well - settled principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, as compensation is awarded on capitalisation of yield method, the multiplier to be adopted is 10.
35. Judicial note was taken in Dharma Kana Katekar (supra) of the erstwhile market rates of mangoes while granting enhanced rate every five years. It is well-known that the price of mangoes is not static and is usually prone to enhancement alongwith the market inflation. The Learned Single Judge has enhanced the price five times every five years. In my view, it would be fair and proper to average out the price computed by the Co-ordinate Bench and consider the price sa_mandawgad/Patil SR 19 of 21 FA 1637-09 & Cr Obj of each mango consistent at Rs 5/. There are 374 Alphonso Mango trees giving 1000 fruits per tree per year aggregating to 3,74,000 fruits per year. Applying the multiplier of 10, the compensation per year would be 3,74,000 x 5 x10 i.e. Rs.1,87,00,000/-.
36. In so far as Raival mango trees are concerned, the price per tree was fixed at Rs.700/- per year for the first 5 years at Rs.1,500/- per year for the next 5 years and at Rs.2,500/- per year for the next 5 years in Dharma Kana Katekar(supra). It is not demonstrated from the decision that the price of the Raival Mango Trees was fixed on the basis of yield. The calculation as computed in the said decision in respect of price of Raival Mango tree can be accepted in the present case and the compensation to be awarded for the three Raival mango trees is Rs.70,500/-.
37. There is substance in the contention of Mr. Patil that the decision in State of Maharashtra v. Dharma Kana Katekar (supra) did not consider the deductions to be made towards maintenance of trees, expenses towards transportation etc. It cannot be disputed that certain expenses are required to be incurred regularly for maintenance of trees on account of pruning, spraying of fertilizers, pest and disease management for achieving better quality yield and for transportation etc., while considering the income from these sa_mandawgad/Patil SR 20 of 21 FA 1637-09 & Cr Obj trees. Though Mr. Patil would submit that 1/3 rd deductions are required to be made, the said ratio is usually applied towards the development cost of land which cannot be applied for the purpose of maintenance of trees. In my view, the deduction of 10% would fairly cover the cost of maintenance of the trees.
38. Accordingly, the Special Land Acquisition Officer is directed to compute the compensation and statutory benefits. Although it was insisted by Mr. Kulkarni that the execution of the order be directed in this Court itself, this Court can lay down timelines to ensure execution of this judgment in time bound manner. Considering that the acquisition is of the year 1986, the Special Land Acquisition Officer is directed to calculate the compensation as directed by this order within a period of 12 weeks from uploading of this order on the official website. The Claimant to be paid the amount computed within a period of three months thereafter.
39. The First Appeal stands dismissed and the Cross Objection is allowed in above terms. The Interim Application does not survive for consideration and stands disposed of.
[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
sa_mandawgad/Patil SR 21 of 21
Signed by: Sanjay A. Mandawgad
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 09/09/2025 19:07:30