Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
G. Siva Rami Reddy vs Special Deputy Collector, Lao, Srbc, ... on 28 June, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(4)ALD620, 2000(4)ALT345, 2000 A I H C 3881, (2000) 2 LACC 273, (2000) 4 ANDHLD 620, (2000) 4 ANDH LT 345
ORDER N.Y. Hanumanthappa, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the order and decree dated 11-12-1997 passed in OP No.1 of 1997 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Nandikolkur.
2. A few facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are as follows;- The State by its notifiction dated 28-2-1986 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act acquired the following extents of land belonging to the claimant :
S. No Ac. Cts. Village 220/1B 1-68 221 1-32 257/1 0.93 258/1 0.05 Jalakanur 258/3A 0.70 258/3B 0.86 262/2 1.25
----
6.79
----
3. The above extents were acquired for purpose of Srisailam Hydro Electric Project. The lands under acquisition were of two types, namely the land in S No.262/2 measuring to an extent of Ac. 1.25 cents was an agricultural land yielding wet crops having the water source from Jalakanur tank maintained by the Government. The lands in other survey numbers were orchards wherein Cheeni (Mosambi or Bathaya) fruits were grown. After enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an Award No.1/ 86-87 dated 25-3-1987 fixing the market value of the acquired lands as detailed below:-
S. No. Extent Land value from 6-4-86 to 25-3-87 12% Addl.
market value 30% solatium Cheeni trees value Grand total 220B 1.68 21,000/-
2.450/-
7035-00 2,700/-
33,185/-
2211.32 16,500/-
1,925/-
5527-50 3,100/-
27,052-50 257/1 0-93 11,629/-
4,34898 12437-79 3,550/-
57,663-77 Structures 25,652/-
(Katwa channel) 37,277/-
258/10.05 625/-
72.90 209.35 907.25 255/3A 070 95,55000 11,14750 32008-25 1,38,706-75 (Chenni trees value) 258/3B 0.85 10,756-00 1,254-16 3606-24 3,300/-
18,905-40 262/2 1.25 13,750-00 1,604-17 450623 19,960-45
3. Aggrieved by the compensation fixed by the LAO, the claimant sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Accordingly a reference was made to the Court below for determination as to the adequacy or otherwise of the compensation awarded by the LAO. Before the Court below, the claimant made a demand for Rs.50,000/-per acre in respect of agricultural land and for cheeni trees aged 3 years at the rate of Rs. 3000/- per tree and Rs. 5000/- per tree respectively.
4. Before the Court below on behlaf of the State one K. Haranath, Special Deputy Collector, LAO was examined as PW1 and Ex.Al Award No.1/86-87 dated 25-3-19S7 was marked. On behalf of the Claimant, G. Sivarami Reddy and Kumari Venkala Subbanna were examined as RWs.1 and 2 and Exs.XI and B1 were marked. Ex.XI is the registration copy of sale deed executed by Kumari Venkata Subbanna in favour of Kumari Venkateswaralu, Ex.B1 is the certified copy of judgment of High Court in AS No.1525 of 1982 and batch dated 6-3-1986 relating to other OPs.
5. Both in the statements and the evidence it was stated that the entire area was getting water from the tank maintained by the Government. In the land bearing S No.262/2 the claimant was raising two wet crops. The claimants made a claim for Rs. 60,000/- per acre in respect of agricultural land. The claimant also produced the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in AS No.1525 of 1982 and Batch to substantiate his claim as just and reasonable. In the said Batch this Court had confirmed the compensation enhanced by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs.60/-per tree with 20 multiplier in respect of similar trees.
6. The trial Court though accepted the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court which was marked as Ex.Bl which has become final, but placing reliance on the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Hayana v. Gurucharana Singh, , held that the claimant is not entitled for the enhancement as demanded by them. On the other hand, the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is just and adequate. Thus holding passed the order under challenge.
7. Before considering how far the order of the Reference Court is correct, it is better if we know how the market value in respect of orchards has to be determined and what is the multiplier to be adopted. The principles, laid down in the following authorities suggest that in case of garden consisting of mango, goa, sapota, coconut, citrus (cheeni and mosambi) orange and lemon trees, the multiplier shall be 20 and this multiplier may vary from 15 to 20 depending upon the nature of the land, its location, availability of water, climatic conditions and other factors.
8. In the case of Kompalli Nageswara Rao and others v. Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquistion, Baptla, , the Division Bench of this Court held that determination of the market value cannot be of two types, one for the land and the other for the orchards. The Division Bench further held that the approved method for valuing orchards is to capitalise their net income of the number of years purchase whicli has to be fixed with reference to the nature of the trees and other circumstances. That was a case where in the garden, citrus, sapota etc., trees were raised. While applying the principle mentioned above the Division Bench went to the extent of multiplying by 20 taking into consideration the longevity of the trees.
9. In the case of State of Madras v. Joseph, , while determining the market value in respect of coconut garden, orange trees referring to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Kompalli Nageswarao's case (supra) the Supreme Court held as follows :
"In Kompalli Nageswara Rao v. Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Bapalla, the Court said that the approved method for valuing orchards is to capitalise their net income at a number of years' purchase which has to be fixed with reference to the nature of the trees and other circumstances and capitalised the net income at 15 years' for finding out the market value of the coconut garden and the orange orchard in question in that case. In Eliaws M. Cohen v. Secretary of State, AIR 1918 Pat. 625(2) the net income from an orchard was capitalised at 15 years' purchase to find out its market value, (...para 11) In this case, the Land Acquisition Officer found in his award that all the fruit bearing trees will yield for more than 20 years. That was the reason which weighed with him to capitalise the net income of these topes at 20 years' purchase to find out their market value. We do not think that the learned Subordinate Judge and the High Court went wrong in accepting this estimate of the average yielding life of coconut and orange trees. Therefore, we do not think that the capitalisation of the net yield from these topes at 20 years' purchase was not fair method to arrive at the market value of these topes. We are not satisfied that the method of valuation adopted for finding out the market value of the topes was, in the circumstances, in any way unreasonable." (Para 12)
10. In the case of Joginder Singh v. State of Haryana, , the Punjab & Haryana High Court held that in respect of orchards the principle of capitalisation for 20 years is proper.
11. The Division Bench of Gowhati High Court in the case of Rabindradhar Barua v. Collector of Kamrup, AIR 1982 Gau. 17, held that in respect of fruit bearing trees, the value of the trees shall be multiplied by 20 years yield. That was a case where bettle-nut trees were raised in the land yielding fruits for many years and applying capitalisation of 20 years for such orchards was found not incorrect.
12. In the case of Collector, Raigarh v. Chaturbhuj Panda and Ors., , the High Court of Madhya Pradesh while dealing with the determination of market value of the orange and mosambi trees, taking into consideration the life span of the trees, found that 15 to 20 years capitalisation is not incorrect.
13. The Division Bench of this Court in AS No.1525 of 1982 and Batch (Ex.Bl) dated 6-3-1986, in respect of similar lands situated in several survey numbers, consisting of both agricultural lands and orchards (Cheeni, bathaya etc.), which were acquired by the State by its 4(1) Notification dated 1-8-1974, award was passed on 18-2-1980 and possession was taken on 25-7-1980 wherein the Assistant Director of Agriculture, who was examined on behalf of the State on oath, stated that he reported to the Land Acquisition Officer on 27-3-1979 that the life span of orange and bathaya trees is 30 years, while confirming the method adopted of applying 20 multiplier by the Reference Court to fix the value of 601 trees, held as follows;-
"The question that arises is what multiple should be applied. Mr. Subba Reddy, Government Pleader submitted that the multiple should not be 20 but it should only be 15 and that at any rate the multiple of 16 applied by the Land Acquisition Officer is just and proper mode to be applied in this case. He brought to our notice certain decisions. We may say at once that the decisions are not uniform. No decision says specifically what the multiple should be. The multiple to be applied depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It may vary with reference to the nature of trees also. For example, the age of the mango tree or its fruit bearing age may not be the same as that of a Batavia tree, which again may not be the same as the coconut tree. Therefore, the multiple to be applied depends on the nature of the tree, the age of the trees on the date of acquisition, the general conditions of the orchards and other relevant circumstances. No hard and fast rule can be applied in such cases. This fact is evident from the very decisions which have been relied upon by Mr. Subba Reddy, the learned Government Pleader. In State of Madras v. Reverend Brother Joseph, , the multiple of 20 was affirmed. In Nageswara v. Special Deputy Collector, ), the multiple of 15 was affirmed. The said Andhra Pradesh decision refers to the decisions of other Courts where different multiples were applied in different circumstances. It is, therefore, ideal to contend that the application of multiple of 20 must be held to be invariable wrong. As we have stated above, the question which we must consider is whether the application of the multiple of 20 is unjustified in the particular facts and circumstances of this case. We think that it is not unjustified. According to Ex.A2, the trees are likely to yield fruits for 20 years from 1979. The acquisition is 1974 and possession was taken in 1980. For the purpose of multiple, what is relevant is, the date of taking of possession and not the date of notification. The difference between the date of Ex.A2 and the date of taking possession is only one year which we do not think so material as to induce us to vary the multiple applied by the Court below. It is well settled that in such matters it is not possible to determine compensation with any arithmetical accuracy. There is bound to be an element of estimate. Having regard to the facts and circumstances discussed above, Exs.A2 and A3 and the evidence of PW1, we are unable to say that the multiple of 20, applied by the Court below, is excessive or unreasonable. Indeed, it is quite justified in the circumstances of the case. We may also mention here the same view was taken by the learned single Judge in his judgment dated 16-1-1986 in A Nos.1522 and 1590 of 1982, which appeals arose from the very same judgment of the civil Court.
Mr. Subba Reddy, the learned Government Pleader, then contended that inasmuch as has already passed by after Ex.A2, by the time the possession was taken, a multiple of 19 should be applied. We do not find any sufficient justification for agreeing to do so. It may also be remembered that some of the trees in the orchard are expected to yield for more than 20 years. No doubt, a large majority of the trees are expected to yield fruits for a period of 20 years only from the date of Ex.A2. But, in view of the fact that some trees are expected to yield for a longer period and also because ultimately it is only an estimate made by PW1 and that too, besed upon a general circular, Ex.A2, we do not see any warrant for varying the multiple applied by the civil Court.
14. From the above principles laid down in the authorities referred to above, it is clear that when the Court is asked to determine the market value of the orchards, it is the duty of the Court to determine the same on the basis of the nature of the trees existing, climatic conditions and other factors. It is submitted that the trees grown in the acquired land are hybrid in nature. They started yielding in the third year itself and every year there will be increase in the yield. In respect of 1974 acquisition the rate of yield per tree was at Rs.60/- as held by the Division Bench of this Court in AS No.1525 of 1982 and Batch. There is time gap of 12 to 13 years from the date of 4(1) Notification, i.e., 1-8-1974 and the present acquisition. The claimant stated that all the trees in the acquired land are fruit bearing trees. He claimed compensation at Rs.350/- per tree and for the agricultural land at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per acre. Ex.X1, dated 22-7-1985 is the registered sale deed. It discloses that two years prior to the 4(1) Notification, the land covered by it which is nearer to the acquired land was sold at Rs.25,000/- per acre by one Kumari Venkata Subbanna in favour of Kumari Venkateswarlu. Further the party to Ex.XI was examined as RW2 and he supported the claim put forth by the claimant.
15. It has come in evidence that there exists 579 cheeni trees out of which 410 are of 3 years old and 69 are 6 years old. The determination of the market value as far as orchards are concerned, the same has been explained above and particularly in the light of the principles laid down by this Court in the case of Kompalli Nageswara Rao (supra), the demand made by the claimant both before the Court below and this. Court, in our view, is on a little higher side. At the same time, had the Reference Court taken into consideration the principles laid down by this Court in AS No.1525 of 1982 and Batch, its finding in determining the market value in respect of cheeni and other allie trees are concerned, would have been quite different. The Court below committed a mistake in placing reliance mainly on the decision by the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Slate of Haryana v. Gurucharan Singh, , without noticing that that was a case where the type of trees involved therein and the trees involved in the case on hand are altogether different. The finding of the Reference Court to reject the claim of the claimant is quite incorrect, unjust and contrary to the principles laid down in the decisions referred to earlier. The Reference Court as well the trial Court committed a mistake in treating the entire land as agricultural land and giving a little margin for trees without noticing that there were two types of lands, one Ac. 1.25 cents of agricultural land in S.No.262/2 and the rest was a garden land. The claimant also made his claim separately. As such the value should have been determined separately. After giving deductions towards expenditure which wilt be very low when compared to agricultural land, the just and adequate compensation for both the agricultural land the the fruit bearing cheeni trees separately shall be as under:
In respect of agricultural land, it is stated that S.No.262/2, a wet land, growing wet and commercial crops twice an year. We can take that gross income from two crops per acre per annum at Rs.5000/-. If 50% is deducted towards expenses, the net income per acre per annum is Rs.2,500/-and if 10 multiplier is applied, it comes to Rs.25,000/- per acre. Further it has come in evidence that the land under Ex.XI was sold at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per acre.
16. Therefore, in our view, Rs.25,000/-per acre can be said as just and reasonable compensation in respect of Ac. 1.25 cents in S.No.262/2.
17. Regarding fruit bearing trees :--If we take the location of the land, nature of the soil, climatic conditions and the well maintenance of the cheeni trees by the claimants, for the trees of 3 years age the compensation at the rate of Rs.135/- per tree and for the trees of 6 years age the compensation at the rate of Rs.270/- per tree, could be said as just and reasonable compensation. It has come in evidence that there were 510 cheeni trees of 3 years age and 69 cheeni trees of 6 years age. Thus the compensalion for 510 trees at the rate of Rs.135/- per tree comes to Rs.68,850/-and if multiplier 16 is applied it works to Rs.111,01,600. In respect of 69 trees the compensation at the rate of Rs.270/- per tree comes to Rs.18,630/- and if multiplier 16 is applied it works out to Rs.2,98,080/-
18. Thus the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.25,000/- per acre towards compensation in respect of Ac. 1.25 cents of agricultural land in Sy. No.262/2 and Rs.11,01,600/- in respect of 510 trees of 3 trees of 3 years age and Rs.2,98,080/- in respect of 69 trees of 6 years age as indicated above. The claimant is also entitled to all other statutory benefits as per law.
19. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs.