Shaik Imambi vs Spl.Dy.Collector.(Land ...

SHAIK IMAMBI .......APPELLANT

Versus

SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LAND .....RESPONDENT ACQUISITION), TELEGU GANGA PROJECT

O R D E R

R.V.Raveendran J.

Application for impleadment is dismissed as

withdrawn. Leave granted. Heard the parties.

2. The appellant was the owner of a lime orchard

measuring 7 acres 84 cents, situated at Dachuru village,

Kaluvoy Mandal, Nellore District. The said land and the

adjoining lands in all measuring 81 acres 38 cents were

acquired for the purpose of fore-shore submersion of

Kandleru Reservoir under Telugu Ganga Project in pursuance

of a notification dated 4.7.1988 issued under Section 4(1)

and a final declaration dated 30.6.1989 issued under Section

6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('Act' for short). The

2

appellant's lime orchard consisted of 761 lime trees. A

small area therein also contained other trees, that is, 20

coconut trees, 24 cheeni trees, 2 guava trees and 2

drumstick trees.

3. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award dated

31.8.1989, determining the market value of the said land by

income capitalisation method. He valued the income from

each lime tree as Rs.80/- per annum. He assessed the age of

the trees as six years (except 33 trees which were only

about four years old). He assessed the remainder of fruit

bearing life of the lime trees as 14 years and therefore

applied the multiplier of 14. After making a provision for

the fact that 33 trees were only four years old, he arrived

the market value with reference to the lime trees as

Rs.8,35,957/-. Taking note of the income from the other

trees in the orchard, he awarded in all Rs.8,67,003.50p. as

compensation. Not being satisfied with the said award, the

appellant sought reference to the Civil Court, which by

judgment and award dated 29.11.2000, upheld the award and

affirmed the compensation determined by the Land Acquisition

Officer.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant appealed to the High

Court, restricting her grievance to the valuation of 761

lime trees. After considering the evidence, the High Court,

3

by impugned judgment dated 9.3.2007, allowed the appeal in

part. It assessed the annual income as Rs.100/- per lime

tree or Rs.76,100/- for 761 trees. The High Court was of the

view that the multiplier to be applied should be only 10 and

not 14 for determining the market value by capitalisation

method. The High Court however did not disturb the

multiplier of 14 adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer for

determining the compensation with reference to the income of

Rs.80/- per tree. Therefore, in regard to the increase of

Rs.20/- per tree per annum granted by it, the High Court

adopted the multiplier of 10 should be adopted. In other

words, the High Court increased the compensation by

Rs.1,52,200/- (that is 761 x 10 x 20). Not being satisfied

with the said increase, the appellant filed this appeal by

special leave.

5. Two contentions are urged by the appellant: (a) The

High Court ought to have maintained the multiplier of 14

adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer instead of reducing

it to 10 in regard to the increased income adopted by it;

(b) The income per lime tree ought to have been taken as

Rs.200/- per annum, instead of Rs.100/- per annum, having

regard to the expert opinion and evidence let in by the

parties.

Re. Question (a)

4

6. The Land Acquisition Officer had adopted a

multiplier of 14 in regard to the annual income of Rs.80/-

per lime tree. That has not been disturbed by the High

Court. The High Court, however, was of the view that in

regard to the increase in income adopted by it, the

multiplier should be only 10, relying upon a decision in

Assistant Commissioner-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Bellary

Vs. S.T. Pompanna Setty, (2005 (9) SCC 662).

7. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that

the multiplier should not be less than 14 adopted by the

Land Acquisition Officer. We cannot accept the contention of

the appellant. Having regard to the consistent view taken by

this Court, we are of the view that the High Court was right

in holding that the multiplier should be 10. This Court has

repeatedly held that the standard multiplier should be 10;

and that in special circumstances based upon specific

evidence regarding the nature, standard, condition of the

orchard, the Court may apply a higher multiplier of 12 or 13

or a lower multiplier of 8. [See Special Land Acquisition

Officer vs. P.Veerabhadrappa (1984 (2) SCC 120), Land

Acquisition Officer Malaprabha Dam Project Saundatti Vs.

Madivalappa Basalingappa Melavanki (1995 (5) SCC 670),

Special Land Acquisition Officer vs. Visupax Shankar

Nadagouda (1996 (6) SCC 124), and Revenue Divisional

5

Officer, Kurnool District Vs. M. Ramakrishna Reddy - 2010

(13) SCALE 427]. But no such special circumstances are made

out. On the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that

the finding of the High Court that the multiplier should be

10 does not call for interference.

Re. Question (b)

8. As noticed above, the Land Acquisition Officer assessed

the net annual income from each lime tree as Rs.80/- and the

High Court assessed the net annual income from each lime

tree as Rs.100/-. The High Court has relied upon the letter

dated 5.6.1986 of the Director (Horticulture), Government of

Andhra Pradesh (addressed to the Special Collector, Telugu

Ganga Project) and the annexed report of the Committee

appointed by the Director to evaluate the income, to

determine the annual income as Rs.100/- per tree. The said

documents estimated the annual income per lime tree as

Rs.150 to Rs.200/- (on a yield of 1500 to 2000 lemons per

tree) and the cost of cultivation per tree as Rs.34/-.

9. The appellant contended that when the report stated

that the annual yield was 1500 to 2000 lemons per tree and

the income therefrom was around Rs.150-200/-, the Court

ought to have taken note of the maximum income, that is

Rs.200/- per annum per tree and after deducting Rs.34/-

towards cost of cultivation, ought to have determined the

6

income as Rs.166/- per tree. On the other hand, the

respondent submitted that the report having estimated the

gross annual income as Rs.150-200/- per tree, after

deducting the cost of cultivation and other expenses, the

High Court had rightly assessed the annual income as

Rs.100/- per tree.

10. There is no specific documentary evidence in regard to

the actual income from the orchard. As the reports of

experts of the state government assessed the gross annual

income from each tree as Rs.150-200/-, it would be

appropriate to take the average thereof, namely Rs.175/- as

the annual income per tree in this case. If Rs.35/- is

deducted towards the cost of cultivation and other expenses

as recommended by the experts, the net annual income would

have been Rs.140/- per tree or Rs.1,06,540/- for 761 trees.

11. Thus instead of the increase of Rs.20/- per tree per

annum awarded by the High Court, we assess the increase to

be awarded as Rs.60/- per tree per annum. We affirm the

multiplier of 10 adopted by the High Court in regard to the

increase, without disturbing the assessment by the Land

Acquisition Officer applying the multiplier of for the

income of Rs. 80/- per annum per tree, assessed by him.

Therefore, the increase in compensation awardable over and

above what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is as

7

follows:

(a) The amount assessed by the Land Acquisition Rs.8,35,957/-

Officer with reference to income from 761 lime trees : 761 x 14 x 80 (with appropriate deduction for 33 lemon trees which were not mature)

(b) Rs.31,046/50 The amount assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer with reference to income from other trees

(c) Compensation awarded by the LAO Rs.8,67,003/50

(a) + (b)

(d) Total increase awarded (including the Rs.4,56,600/-

increase of 20/- awarded by the High Court) : 761 x 10 x 60

12. We accordingly allow this appeal in part and increase

the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer by

Rs.4,56,600/- with statutory benefits under section 23(1A)

and 23(2) and interest as per section 28 of the Act. The

appellant will also be entitled to costs of Rs.15,000/-.

.....................J. ( R.V. RAVEENDRAN )

New Delhi; .....................J. February 02, 2011. ( A.K. PATNAIK )