Saraswatabai Motiram Tayade vs Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corpn.

2025 INSC 1022 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. …………… OF 2025 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 97 OF 2021]

SARASWATABAI MOTIRAM TAYADE & ORS. …APPELLANTS

VERSUS

VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION & ANR. …RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT

DIPANKAR DATTA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The judgment and order dated 17th September, 2020, passed by the High

Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, while disposing

of First Appeal No. 143 of 2014 presented by Vidarbha Irrigation

Development Corporation is under challenge at the instance of the

appellants-landowners1, who were the respondents in such appeal.

3. The appellants were affected by the subject land acquisition proceedings

and had sought a reference before the appropriate court under Section

18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 18942. An award was duly made on 29th

August, 2011. The said award upon being challenged before the High Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NITIN TALREJA Date: 2025.08.22 14:23:11 IST Reason: 1 appellants 2 L A Act Court has suffered modification on one count. The only point in respect

whereof the appellants have urged interference with the appellate order

of the High Court is in respect of reduction of multiplier applied to the

orange trees which were standing on the acquired land. While the

reference court applied the multiplier of 15, the High Court reduced it to

10 considering the decisions of this Court in Bilquis v. State of

Maharashtra3 and Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool District v.

M. Ramakrishna Reddy4. However, the finding that the multiplier

should be reduced is not premised on any other substantive ground.

4. We have perused the decisions in Bilquis (supra) and M. Ramakrishna

Reddy (supra).

5. In Bilquis (supra), the observation that the reference court ought to

have used the 10 years purchase as a multiplier instead adopting 20

years purchase was rendered “in the facts and circumstances of the

case”. This decision, therefore, is not a precedent on the aspect of

multiplier which would be binding on all courts in terms of Article 141 of

the Constitution.

6. In M. Ramakrishna Reddy (supra), this Court observed that the

general trend is to adopt a multiplier of 8 to 10 in regard to plantations,

fruit orchards, and the multiplier ranging from 10 to 12 for agricultural

crop land. It was also observed that in the absence of any special

circumstances to apply the higher multiplier of 12 or 13 or the lower

3 (2018) 7 SCC 530 4 (2011) 11 SCC 648

2 multiplier of 8, the standard multiplier of 10 should be applied having

regard to the evidence in regard to the nature, standard and position of

the orchard. Even this decision acknowledges that if there exist special

circumstances, application of a higher or a lower multiplier could be

justified.

7. It is not in dispute that large tracts of land were acquired in village

Khanapur, Teh. Patur, in the district of Akola, pursuant to notification

dated 22nd August, 1995 issued under Section 4 of the L A Act. Possession

of the acquired lands was taken on 1st April, 1996. The appellants having

sought a reference, it gave rise to LAR No. 203 of 2002. The reference

court by an award dated 29th August, 2011, inter alia, awarded Rs.

3,15,000/- for 42 orange trees apart from compensation for 8

sandalwood trees, 1 teak wood tree, 1 neem tree and 1 dudhi palas tree.

As a result of the modification ordered by the High Court, the

compensation for the 42 orange trees stands reduced to Rs. 2,10,000/-

from Rs. 3,15,000/-.

8. It is a fact that other landowners having sought reference under Section

18 of the L A Act, several land acquisition reference cases were

registered. In one such case, evidence was tendered by an expert from

a local agricultural university who deposed that the life of an orange tree

could be up to 30 years. The periodical yield of an orange tree from time

to time was further spoken to by him. According to him, an orange tree

could bear fruits for 15 to 20 years. All such reference cases were heard

by the reference court immediately prior to the reference case of the

3 appellants was heard. The reference court had such evidence of the

expert before it. These lands undisputedly were adjacent to the land of

the appellants. In respect of the orange trees standing on such adjacent

lands, the reference court had adopted 15 years’ purchase and applied

the multiplier of 15 while computing compensation. One of the several

awards of the reference court was challenged before the High Court in

First Appeal No. 627 of 2013. Vide judgment and order dated 27th

November, 2019, the award of the reference court was affirmed. The

respondent accepted the order of the High Court insofar as those

landowners are concerned but while invoking the appellate jurisdiction of

the High Court, did not invite the attention of the learned Judge seized

of the appeal (out of which this appeal has arisen) to the said judgment

and order dated 27th November, 2019.

9. There was evidence before the reference court that the orange trees of

the appellants were 3 to 4 years old. Having regard to the evidence of

the expert, application of the multiplier of 15 appears to be a plausible

approach. However, the learned Judge was persuaded to reduce the

multiplier to 10 without being apprised of the earlier decision of the

coordinate Bench.

10. Therefore, what emerges is this that for acquisition of lands under a

common notification issued under Section 4 of the L A Act in respect of

lands comprised in one village, the multiplier applied for determining

compensation for uprooted orange trees of other landowners is 15

whereas it is 10 for the appellants.

4

11. We do not think that in the matter of grant of compensation, landowners

who are similarly situate should face any kind of discrimination. Once the

respondent has accepted the judgment and order dated 27th November,

2019, the notice of the learned Judge was not invited to such judgment

and order and there being no tenable reason assigned for reduction of

the multiplier from 15 to 10, we are of the considered opinion that the

said judgment and order dated 27th November, 2019, constituted a

special circumstance for which multiplier of 15 applied by the reference

court should not have been disturbed. Consequently, we are of the view

that determination of the reference court qua compensation for the 42

orange trees should be restored and that of the High Court set aside. It

is ordered accordingly.

12. This appeal, thus, stands allowed with a direction to the respondent to

pay, within 8 weeks, the balance sum of Rs. 1,05,000/- to the appellants

together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 17th September,

2020 till payment is made. In default, rate of interest shall increase to

9% per annum.

13. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

………..……………………………J. (DIPANKAR DATTA)

…….……..…………………………J. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) NEW DELHI.

AUGUST 18, 2025.

5