State Of Haryana vs Gurcharan Singh & Anr. Etc on 18 January, 1995
21. One thing is certain that the multiplier to be
adopted cannot be commensurate with the economic
lifespan of the tree as has been done by the learned
District Judge. He has used multiplier of 35 and has
capitalized the net income to arrive at the amount of
compensation payable. This approach is
impermissible. In land acquisition cases, the value of
the acquired land wherein fruit bearing trees are
grown has been determined normally by applying 10
multiplier. The Apex Court in the matter of STATE
OF HARYANA Vs. GURCHARAN SINGH AND
ANOTHER - 1995 Supp (2) SCC 637 has held that
when the market value of agricultural land is
determined on the basis of the yield, then necessarily
suitable multiplier deserved to be applied to award
reasonable compensation. But under no
circumstances, the Court should allow the
compensation on the basis of the nature of land and
as well as fruit bearing tree. In other words, the
market value of the land cannot be determined twice
over, once on the basis of the value of the land and
again on the basis of the yield secured from the fruit
bearing tree, which is impermissible. It is further laid
down that once the compensation is determined on
the basis of the value of the land, as distinct from the
income applying suitable multiplier, then the trees
WP.40539/2013
14
would be valued and necessary compensation should
be given. In the said case, the Apex Court has ruled
that when the market value is determined on the
basis of the yield from the tree or a plantation, 8
years multiplier shall be appropriate multiplier. For
agricultural land, 12 years multiplier has been held to
be suitable multiplier.