Navanath & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition E
(Civil) Nos 2804-2810 of 2004.
2. These appeals by special leave arise out of a common
judgment and order dated 20th/21st March, 2002 passed by a
Division Bench of the Bombay High Court allowing the appeals F
preferred by the State in part from a judgment and award dated
24.07.1995.
3. The Government of Maharashtra intended to undertake
construction of a medium irrigation project on the Uthala River .
at Patoda Taluka in the District of Beed commonly known as G
"Uthala Irrigation Project". For the said purpose, lands situated
at village Tagadgao were acquired. The total land sought to be
acquired measured 182 Hectares and belonged to 274
individual land owners. A notification under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act") was issued on H
A 6.10.1988. A declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made
on 6. 7.1989. An award was published on 29.06.1990.
4. The acquired lands were classified in two categories;
(1) Bagayat lands (irrigated lands); and (2) Jirayat lands (non
B irrigated lands but are otherwise cultivable).
In these appeals, we are not concerned with the question
as regards classification of the acquired lands as also the ...
amount of compensation computed therefor. )-
C 5. Claimants - appellants, however, contend that the lands
had fruit bearing trees, wells, pipe lines, structures of cow-shed/
Gotha and Bandh etc. Indisputably, the Special Land
Acquisition Officer classified the said lands into following six
categories:
Group Total Total Area Total Pot Area Com pen
No. Survey Acquired -Kharab Cultivable -sation
Numbers Rate paid
under (per Are)
Acquisition Hee. Are Hee. Are Hee. Are Rs.
I 8 36.24 0.89 35.35 130.00
II 19 -87.06 1.81 85.25 150.00
Ill 13 47.71 0.82 46.89 170.00
IV 4 10.36 - 10.36 190.00
v - - - - -
VI 2 1.13 - 1.13 230.00
Total 46 182.50 3.52 178.98
G 6. The Special Land Acquisition Officer in his award fixed
the market value of the said lands from Rs.130/-to Rs.230/
per Acre. In addition thereto, however, compensation was, inter
alia, granted for fruit bearing trees, wells, pipe lines, structures
of cow-shed/Gotha and Bandh etc. inter alia holding that some
H of the lands under acquisition were Jirayat and some were
--<: NAVANATH & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 641
-
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
~
Bagayat lands but no~ notified as such. Most of the lands having A
dry cultivation are found to be of medium to superior quality.
Relying on the 7/12 extract entered in the revenue record for
the last three years, it was held that though the lands had been
shown as wetlands but they are in fact seasonally irrigated, and
hence cannot be treated as bagayat lands. The valuation of the B
said lands, therefore, was made treating them as Jirayat lands.
Statutory allowance at .the rate of 30% over the amount of ... _., compensation was also granted as provided by Section 23(2)
of the Act. Additional compensation at the rate of 12 per
centum per annum of the market value from the date of c
·~
publication of notification i.e., 28.10.1998 till the date of award,
i.e., 27.7.1990, was also granted.
7. Reference in terms of Section 18 of the Act was made
by the Collector at the instance of appellants herein to the D Reference Court.
"" Dr. Mukund Ramrao Gaikwad (PW2) was examined. He
was a Horticulturist. Appellants also examined one Ramhair
Bayaji Ghodake (PW3) a Consulting Engineer.
> E
4 The State on its behalf examined Ramkrishna Ganpatrao
Chaudhari, Horticulture Inspector working in the Office of the
Deputy Director of Horticulture, Sangli and Kisan Amrutrao
.. ~ Widekar, sub-Divisional Engineer in the office of Executive
Engineer, Aurangabad Irrigation Division on its behalf. F
8. The Reference Judge examined all the matters referred
to him on a case by case basis. Indisputably, out of 182
reference cases, in 108 matters witnesses were examined and
documents were proved. However, in 74 matters neither any
witness was examined nor any document was proved. G
J . 9. The Reference Court classified the lands principally in
~·
two categories. It disagreed with the opinion of the Land
Acquisition Collector that only the entries made in the revenue
records of right particularly the registers 7 and 7/12 were to be H
A considered for the purpose of determining the market value of
the lands acquired opining that the land revenue assessment
only is one of the factors but together therewith, comparable
sale instances, quality and fertility of the lands acquired, their
potential value, location, etc. were also relevant.
B 10. Upon considering the materials brought on record by
the parties and having regard to the depositions of witnesses
with regard to the quality of the soil, the potential value of the
lands, nature of cultivation, i.e., Whether they were Bagayat or
C Jirayat, the nature of crops raised therein, i.e. like Sugarcane,
Groundnut, Tamarind, Chilly, Cotton, Wheat, etc.; whereas a
sum of Rs, 1,00,000/-per hectare was fixed as market value
for the Bagayat lands;. a sum of Rs. 75,000/-per hectare was
determined for the Jirayat lands besides other statutory dues.
D 11. The learned Reference Judge in its judgment,
furthermore, considered the question as to whether the
appellants were entitled to additional amount of compensation
towards the value of fruit bearing trees or not holding that
different varieties thereof like Mango, Lemon, Guava,
E Pomegranate, Coconut, Custard apple, Borr Mosumbi, etc. had
also been standing on the said lands at the time of their
acquisition and having regard to the fact that no evidence was
adduced rebutting the same on behalf of the State, awards on
that basis were passed.
F 12. As regards the potentiality and fertility of lands, the
learned Reference Court held that the existence of irrigation
facility in the form of wells and development of orchards on the
acquired lands shows that they had huge potential value and
no evidence in rebuttal was adduced by the respondents on this
G point.
It was furthermore held that sale instances from Village
Tagadgaon itself and the sale instances in respect of the lands
situated in the vicinity of the acquired lands, which took place
...
-
NAVANATH & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 643
[S.8. SINHA, J.)
on or about the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, A
can be considered as comparable sale instances for arriving
at adequate market value of the acquired lands.
As regards Bagayat and Jirayat lands, the learned judge
held the sale instance dated 25.4.1985 having been executed 8 three years prior to the date of publication may also be taken
into consideration in terms whereof the Bagayat land was sold
at Rs.1200/-per Are. Similarly, sale instances dated 3.9.1983
executed three to five years prior to the date of publication was
also taken into account whereby Bagayat Land was sold at C
Rs. 750/- per Are. Considering the above two sale instances,
the learned Reference Court awarded Rs.1000/- per Are for
Bagayat Land. The post sale instances dated .18.8.1990 and
1.4.1993 were moreover taken into account for fixing the market
value for Jirayat Lands, in terms whereof said lands were sold
at the rate of Rs.1375/-per Are and Rs.1562/-per Are. The D
learned Reference Judge fixed the market value for Jirayat
Lands at the rate of Rs. 750/- per Are. It was also noticed that
the possession was taken on 1.8.1990.
As regards fruit bearing trees, it held that no reliance can E
be made either on the evidence adduced by the Respondents
or claimants. It was observed that as it is difficult to arrive at
exact figure of damages, some guess work was necessary. The
valuation report was prepared as per the Guidelines issued by
the department. It was furthermore held that unless exact age F
of the trees as well as their fruit bearing capacity was
ascertained, it was not possible to fix the exact value of the
damages with regard thereto. ,
13. The State preferred an appeal thereagainst before the
High Court questioning the correctness of the said award of the G
Reference Court, inter alia, on the following grounds:
i. The sale instances relied upon by the Land
Acquisition Collector being genuine and
comparable; the Reference Court was not justified H
.......
~
A in discarding the same.
ii. The sale instances which were being relied upon
by the Reference Court involved transactions
between two real brothers and therefore not
B genuine.
iii. No additional amount of compensation for the fruit ...
bearing trees and for building of 'Bundhs' etc. could ~
be awarded because the amount of compensation
was determined on the basis that the nature of the
c lands was Bagayat.
14. By reason of the impugned judgment and order, the
High Court allowed the said appeals in part upon re-classifying
the entire land under acquisition into four groups, namely, (i)
D Pot-Kharab land; (ii) dry land under cultivation; (iii) land under
seasonal irrigation; and (iv) land under perennial irrigation.
On the basis of the aforementioned sub-classification, the
market value was determined at (i) for perennially irrigated land
at Rs.1,00,000/-per hectare; (ii) for dry land at Rs.50,000/-per
hectare, (iii) for land under seasonal irrigation at Rs. 75,000/-
per hectare and (iv) for Pot-Kharab land at Rs.10,000/-per
hectare.
-...
"' In support of the said conclusion, the learned judge
F opined:-
i. both the parties agree that the comparable sales
instances method of valuation as adopted by the
Reference Court has been rightly adopted.
G ii. 7 /12 extracts show the cultivation in different ~
seasons, plantation of fruit bearing trees as well as
the seasonal and perennial nature of irrigation
available either by well water or by lift irrigation.
H iii. The Land Acquisition Collector had set out in the
NAVANATH & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 645
...... [S.B. SINHA, J.] ,_,.
award E-Statement of three types of lands viz. dry, A
seasonally irrigated and perennially irrigated lands.
In addition, number of fruit bearing trees had been
counted which was not disputed.
iv. Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation for B the fruit bearing trees on the basis of capitalization
method in addition to the market value of the land . .. The Reference Court had also done the same thing 4
on the basis of evidence of Expert.
V. Compensation granted separately for the land as c
also on the basis of valuation of the fruit bearing
trees is impermissible in law.
vi. When the potential of the land is taken into
consideration the irrigation facilities available and D
the crop pattern, the acceptable method of fixing
market value should be only comparable sale
instances.
vii. Plantation of fruit bearing trees having commenced
from the year 1986-1987, no compensation was E
payable thereto.
viii. When the Section 4(1) Notification was issued the
"'~ trees planted were of the age of two to three years
and, thus, possibility of obtaining undue advantage F
therefor by the land-owners by planting trees cannot
be ruled out.
ix. Acquired lands should be reclassified into four
groups. G
"- x. Reference Court while fixing the market value of the
Bagayat Land at Rs.1,00,000/-per Hectare wrongly
decided the market value of Jirayat Land at
Rs.75,000/-, and reduced the value of Jirayat Land
at Rs.50,000/-per hectare. H
_,.
A xi. The Land Acquisition Officer did not step into the
~
witness box and none of the sale instances relied
/
on by the State was brought on record.
xii. It is appropriate to hold that the perennially irrigated
B land could be valued at Rs.1,00,000/-.
xiii. No additional compensation is payable for well, fruit
bearing trees and the pipe line etc. • ,.
xiv. The claimants would be entitled for loss of structure
c like cow shed or storage facility and compensation
for the big trees like tamarind, Mango and Neem
Trees on the basis of the value of the timber wood
or fire wood, as the case may be.
XV. The Correct value for the timber wood for these
D trees could be fixed at Rs.500/-for Babool, Neem
and Tamarind trees. So far as the Mango trees are
concerned, the value of fire wood would be Rs.200/
~ per each tree.
E xvi. No extra compensation is payable on account of
fire wood or timber wood in respect of fruit bearing
trees.
xvii. Compensation for structures like Cow-shed/Gothas ~ ...
F be paid as per the Report at Ex.96 made by Kisan
Amrutrao Wadekar (Horticulturist Inspector).
Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment, appellants are before us.
G 15. Mr. Shyam Divan, learned Senior Counsel appearing
on behalf of appellants would contend: )
i. The State could not have questioned the.
classification of land or valuation of the fruit bearing
trees in view of the award made by the Land
NAVANATH & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 647
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
Acquisition Collector. A
ii. In view of the findings of fact arrived at by the High
Court itself though the sale instances· brought on
record by appellants before the Reference Court
were genuine and there was no evidence brought 8 on record by the respondent- State to rebut the
same, it must be held to have committed a serious
error in passing the impugned judgment.
iii. The High Court committed a serious error in re
classifying the acquired lands into four categories C
although no material had been brought on record
contradicting the evidence adduced on behalf of
appellants.
iv. The State, having accepted the amount of 0 compensation at the rate of Rs. 75,000/-per hectare
in respect of land of an adjoining village, namely,
Padali, could not be permitted to question the rate
of compensation awarded in respect of the Jirayat
land situated in the village in question, namely, E.
Tagadgao.
v. The High Court furthermore committed a serious
error in interfering with the amount of compensation
awarded by the Reference Court in respect of fruit
bearing trees, well, pipe, lines, structures of cow- F
shed/Gotha arid Bandh etc.
16. Mr. Chinmoy Khaladkar, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, would contend:
i. The Special Land Acquisition Officer having G
proceeded to classify the land as also the amount
of compensation payable in respect of the trees on
the basis of the revenue records and in particular
7/12 extracts, the impugned judgment is
unassailable. H
648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 6 S.C.R.
r•
~
A ii. The High Court cannot be said to have committed
any error in holding that a survey was conducted
prior to issuance of the notification under Section
4 of the Act, it can be presumed that the land
owners planted fruit bearing trees for obtaining
B higher amount of compensation as has been
observed by this Court in KA.A. Raja & Ors. vs.
State of Kera/a & Anr. [(1994) 5 SCC 138). •
-+.
iii. Amount of compensation cannot be determined for
the land both on the basis of its classification as also
c on the basis of fruit bearing trees separately.
iv. The Land Acquisition Officer· having considered the
7/12 extracts for determining the age of the trees,
the Reference Court committed a serious illegality
D in interfering therewith.
17. The purpose for which the lands have been acquired
is not in dispute. We have noticed hereinbefore that a large
tract of lands situate in different villages were acquired.
E Evidently, they belong to different categories. Some of the
lands were Pot - Kharab lands, i.e., waste lands.
A holder of a land has a statutory right to ask the Collector
by a written application that the matter be referred for ., ...
determination of the court in regard to amount of compensation
F in terms of Section 18 of the Act while taking objection to the
amount of compensation awarded by the Collector. The owner
of the land may raise various contentions including the
measurement of the land, the amount of compensation, the
persons to whom it is payable, etc.
For the purpose of getting the amount of compensation
determined, the applicant may furthermore raise contentions as
regards classification of land, non-grant of compensation under
different heads, non-grant and/or inadequate grant of
H compensation under different Heads, etc.
NAVANATH & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 649
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
;.·~
-it 18. The Reference Judge, thus, has a duty to consider all A
such objections. For the said purpose, opportunities must be
given to the applicants to establish that the findings arrived at
by the Collector in his award in respect of grant of
compensation-were based on a wrong classification of land
and/or ignoring the relevant materials therefor. B
I
19. At least in 108 cases, applicants examined
...F:...,_~
themselves. Their oral depositions as regards classification of ..., land, the number and nature of fruit bearing trees, the age of
the trees and other relevant factors were brought on record. c Apart from examining the owners of the lands individually,
common evidence by examining a Horticulturist, namely, Dr.
Mukund Ramrao Gaikwad and a Consulting Engineer, namely,
Ramhair Bayaji Ghodake was adduced.
20. The State, however, did not examine any witness D
except one Ramkrishna Ganpatrao Chaudhari, Horticulture
Inspector and one Kisan Amrutrao Widekar, Sub-Divisional
Engineer.
The Reference Court gave detailed reasons as to why the E amount of compensation awarded by the Collector should be
enhanced having regard to the classification of lands as also
on the ground that there were fruit bearing trees thereupon. The
~·,,.. learned Reference Judge found that in the matter of the number
and nature of trees as also value thereof, there does not exist F much differe·nce between the opinion of the experts examined
on behalf of appellants and those examined on behalf of the
State.
21. The High Court, however, while accepting that there
were comparable sale instances and as regards the quality of G
• the land, crops pattern and the irrigation facilities as well as the
development of orchards/sericulture, observed:
"They show the cultivation in different seasons, plantation
of fruit bearing trees as well as the seasonal and perennial H
-1
~~
A nature of irrigation available either by well water or by lift +
irrigation. The cultivation pattern of different crops has not
been seriously disputed and they are Jowar, Bajari,
Onions, wheat, sunflower, turmeric and sugarcane (though
in selected few cases). So far as the fruit trees are
B concerned, undoubtedly there are some claims which
involved the trees like tamarind and mangos which have
grown on their own but there are some orchards which .. '
were developed and they contained the trees like mangos, ~
pomegranates, Guava, Paper Lemon and Sweet Lime.
c Out of these fruits, it is of common knowledge that only the
plantation of sweet lime trees may require irrigation facility
round the years, whereas all other fruits, including chikoo
fruit trees, do not require such round the year irrigation
facility. Similarly, amongst the crops it is only sugarcane
D which requires irrigation facility round the year. Even if there
is water source available by way of a well in a particular
land, it could be a source of irrigation seasonally and there
is no guarantee that it could be a perennial source of
income."
E 22. The High Court despite noticing that the Land
Acquisition Officer had also granted compensation on the
market value as also separate compensation for the fruit
bearing trees on the basis of the valuation made by the
""' Horticulture Inspector, opined that compensation granted ...
F separately for the land and valuation of the fruit bearing trees
is impermissible in law. The High Court, however, accepted that
while the award of the Reference Court can be set aside having
regard to the provisions contained in Section 25 of the Act, the
amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition
G Officer in terms of Section 11 of the Act should not have been
interfered with. J.
23. The opinion of the High Court that saplings varying from
1 to 3 years of age are available for plantation from the
H Government as well as private horticulture nurseries is based
NAVANATH & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 651
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
"~
1- on surmises and conjectures. The State does not appear to A
have raised such a contention, nor any material for formation
of such an opinion was brought on record.
24. In. certain cases, the conduct of a person claiming
higher amount of compensation by taking recourse to certain B acts to show development of the lands for obtaining better
compensation may be a subject matter of the judicial notice as
has been done by this Court in K.A.A. Raja (supra), but even
... therein some materials were available for arriving at a
conclusion as would appear from the following observation: c
"This case itself establishes from the record that, but for
the report of the Forest Officer, the report given by the
Subordinate Officers of the Revenue Department would
have persuaded the courts to accept the report of the
Revenue Officers that the plantation was maintained of D
high standards and in good conditions which was belied
by the report of the Forest officials, as accepted by the
High Court. Therefore, it would be necessary in every case
to place a correct report before the reference court the true
state of affairs regarding the number of trees, their ages, E
their yield, in particular where capitalisation method is to
be adopted to determine the market value of the acquired
land."
-;..
>• It is on the aforementioned premise, this Court opined that
it would be necessary in every case to place a correct report F
before the Reference Court, the true state of affairs regarding
the number of trees, their age, yield, in particular where
capitalization method is to be adopted to determine the market
value of the acquired land. Relying upon its earlier decision in
G Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. vs. State of Kerala
•• [(1991) 4 sec 195] it was held:-
"In Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State of
Kerala [(1991) 4 SCC 195] this court held that~t is the duty
of the court to determine just and fair market value and the H
~ ..
A conduct of the Land Acquisition Court or officer in that ~
behalf, if found to be a misconduct the officer was
amenable to disciplinary proceedings for misconduct. That
apart the claimants should produce necessary evidence
on the value of land since the burden of proof is on them
B to establish the higher compensation claimed. Equally the
Officer-in-Charge has responsibility and duty to place all
material and relevant evidence in rebuttal of the enhanced
claim. As a part thereof the condition _of the trees, the ages -1.
of the trees their number and the total yield derived from
c the trees being material and relevant facts to adjudge not
only the value of the produce, but also to apply suitable
multiplier to determine the market value as compensation.
The court equally has duty, on an overall consideration of
the facts and circumstances available in the particular case
D on hand, while determining the number of trees, their ages,
the yield and the price fetched or likely to fetch in the open
market should apply appropriate multiplier in determining
the market value of the grove or plantation etc. In any case
for want of appropriate evidence as to multiplier adduced
by either party, we take seven years' multiplier for purpose
of capitalisation of net income, though income may vary
depending on evidence.
25. Each case, however, must be considered on its own
facts. Whereas in KA.A. Raja (supra) a proposal was made ~ ..... __
F to acquire 52.88 acres of cardamom plantation, in Periyar and
Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. (supra), the proposal was to acquire
land where rubber trees were grown. It is, therefore, in our
opinion, impermissible to take recourse to surmises and
conjectures across the board that even the agriculturist of a
G remote village whose lands are being acquired for undertaking
an irrigation project, would take recourse thereto. ~
26. No rule in absolute terms, in our opinion, can be laid
down therefor. In the instant case, the learned Reference Judge
had made a scrupulous enquiry in regard to each and every
(.
NAVANATH & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 653
,,.,_ [S.B. SINHA, J.]
,....
claim. It had taken into consideration the evidences adduced A
on behalf of both the parties not only with regard to the
classification of the land but also the number of trees, their age,
the quality, etc.
27. We may notice that the learned Reference Judge B determined the question in regard to the classification of land
on the basis of the evidences adduced before it by individual
--- land owners; by way of examplE:l, .having regard to the fact that ~
claimants had failed to prove that the land had any irrigational
facility, the learned Reference Judge classified the lands as c Jirayat lands. If the State was aggrieved thereby, it was bound
to show that the findings arrived at by the Reference Court is
no~ sustainable having regard to the materials brought on
record. The finding of fact arrived at by the learned Reference
Judge on the basis of the materials brought on record, in our
D opinion, could not have been interfered with by the High Court
on the surmises and conjectures. Apart from the fact that the
State had not examined any witness in support of its case, no
oral or documentary evidence other than the revenue entries
was adduced. We may notice that even the Horticulturist
examined on behalf qf the State made its report in terms of the E
guidelines issued by the State.itself.
.-~
It is one thing to say that any circular letter issued by the
State allowing certain guidelines are not applicable but it is
another thing to say that when the officers of the State F
themselves prepare a report on the basis thereof, the High
Court would interfere therewith on certain assumptions. In short,
if the Reference Court had considered the matters on case by
case basis, the State should have pointed out before the High
Court as to on what basis it intended to question the correctness G
+ of the said finding.
28. Relia.nce has been placed by Mr. Khaladkar on P.
Ram Reddy and Ors. vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad
Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad and Ors. [(1995)
2 sec 305], wherein one of the questions formulated was the H
~·
A effect of non-cross-examination or ineffective cross-examination
~
of witnesses for the claimant. It was held:
"It is, no doubt true, that whenever oral evidence is
adduced by parties on certain matters in controversy, it
B may become difficult for Court to overlook such evidence,
if it is not shown by effective cross-examination of such
witnesses who have given such evidence or by adducing ... contra-evidence that the oral evidence was unreliable or -t
the witnesses themselves are not credit worthy. But, in land
c acquisition references before Civil Courts, when witnesses
give oral evidence in support of the claims of claimants for
higher compensation the in-effective cross-examination of
such witness, is riot an uncommon feature if regard is had
to the manner in which claims for enhanced compensation
in land acquisition cases are defended in courts on behalf
of the Stale, Indeed, when a question arose before this
Court whether the Court is bound to accept the statement
of witnesses only because they have not been effectively
cross-examined or evidence in rebuttal has not been
adduce, it was observed by this Court in Chaturbhuj
E Pande and Ors. vs. Collector; Raigarh AIR (1969) S.C.
255, thus:
'It is true that the witnesses examined on behalf of
the appellants have not been effectively cross- -<! ~
F examined. It is also true that the Collector had not
adduced any evidence in rebuttal; but that does not
mean that the court is bound to accept their
evidence. The Judges are not computers ...... they
are bound to call into aid their experience of life and
G test the evidence on the basis of probabilities.'"
+
The said decision would not, however, apply in cases
where not only there had been effective cross examination but
also where evidence had been adduced in rebuttal of the
evidences adduced by the claimant. It is furthermore not a case
f,,..,.
NAVANATH & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 655
,,._ [S.B. SINHA, J.]
... that there had been no effective cross. examination of the A
witnesses and in fact no such ground had been taken before
the High Court. The High Court has also not arrived at such a
finding. We, therefore, fail to appreciate as to why the said
decision has been relied upon.
29. Determination of compensation of lands on the basis B
of capitalization method in relation to fruit bearing trees is well .._ known. It has been so held in Kera/a State Electricity Board
~
vs. Livisha & ors. ((2007) 6 sec 792], stating:-
"11. So far as the compensation in relation to fruit bearing c
trees are concerned the same would also depend upon
the facts and circumStances of each case. We may,
incidentally, refer to a recent decision of ttiis Court in Land
Acquisition Officer, v. Kamandana Ramakrishna Rao
((2007) 3 sec 526] wherein claim on yield basis has been D
'""
held to be relevant for determining the amount of
compensation payable under the Land Acquisition Act,
same principle has been reiterated in Kapur Singh Mistry
v. Financial Commission and Revenue Secretary to
Govt. of Punjab and Ors. 1995 Supp. (2) SCC 635, State E
of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. 1995 Supp. (2)
SCC 637, para 4, and Airports Authority of India v.
Satyagopa/ Roy (2002) 3 SCC 527. In Airport Authority
.. ,... (Supra), it was held: (SCC p.533 para 14)
'14. Hence, in our view, there was no reason for the F
High Court not to follow the decision rendered by
this Court in Gurucharan Singh's case and
determine the compensation payable to the
respondents on the basis of the yield from the trees
G by applying 8 years' multiplier. In this view of the .. matter, in our view, the High Court committed error
apparent in awarding compensation adopting the
multiplier of 18.'
I
A In State of J & K vs. Mohammad Mateen Wani & ors.
[(1998) 6 sec 233], it was categorically held:
"10. As regards the compensation in respect of fruit
bearing trees and tubewells the High Court had
B relied upon the Government circular which allows
compensation in respect of fruit bearing trees and
tubewell separately. Nothing contrary has been
brought to our notice and, therefore, we do not think '"' -;_
it proper to disturb the said finding."
c 30. It is of some significance to notice that the
'Horticulturist' examined on behalf of the State itself had referred
to the table which is considered to be an authority for the
purpose of aetermining the compensation payable in respect
of the fruit bearing trees.
D Not only the authority of the said table has been resorted
"' by the Horticulturist examined on behalf of the State but also
acknowledged by the Horticulturist examined on behalf of
appellants.
E 31. Our attention, however, has been drawn to a decision
of this Court in State of Haryana vs. Gurcharan Singh and
another etc. [1995 Suppl. (2) SCC 637] by Mr. Khaladkar to
contend that the determination of compensation for land on the ~---basis of its valuation and again on the basis of the fruit bearing
F trees should not be done separately.
32. 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
G 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 Kera/a State Electricity
H Board VS. Livisha & ors. (2007) 6 SCC 792, where multiplier
NAVANATH & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 657
~- [S.B. SINHA, J.]
~
of eight was used and Assistant Commissioner-cum-Land A
Acquisition Officer, Bellary vs. Sri S. T. Pompanna Setty
((2005) 9 sec 662) where multiplier of ten was used]
In some decisions of this Court even higher multiplier was
used. B
--
33: The legal principle laid down in this behalf in a catena
ct of decisions of this Court is that the market value of the land
cannot be determined both on the basis of sale instance as also
on capitalization method keeping in view the fact that it had fruit
bearing trees. But, in this case, nothing has been pointed out c
before us that the fruit bearing trees in large numbers were
existing in the agricultural land itself and the Reference Court
had valued the same land by adoptirig two different methods.
Had such a position been existing, the Land Acquisition Officer
... himself and/or the Horticulturist and the Consulting Engineer D
appointed on behalf of the State would not have taken recourse
thereto. They are experts in their own fields. The Land
Acquisition Officer is presumed to know the legal principles
governing valuation. Furthermore, as noticed hereinbefore,
recourse to the determination of amount of compensation of fruit E
· bearing trees have been taken keeping in view the guidelines
issued by the State itself .
.. 34. It is furthermore not a case where the same land has .. ,
been valued twice once as an agricultural land and again as F an orchard or forest. When an orchard is acquired the nature
thereof can be found from the revenue records of right and
similarly when an agricultural land is acquired the nature thereof
can be ascertained from the revenue records. If, however, on
an agricultural or other categories of land including the other
G +- ' · categories referred to by the Reference Judge or by the High
Court in which a few trees stand, the question as regards the
valuation of the said trees as such must be ascertained for the
purpose of finding out the actual market value of the land
-· -4
A acquired. The Land Acquisition Collector and the learned
Reference Judge had merely taken recourse to the said
procedure. A distinction must further be borne in mind where
common evidences are adduced in respect of a large number
of parties by both sides and, in particular, the principle of
B valuation having regard to the peculiar features of the village
in question and acquisition of land which belongs to one or two
persons and specific features of the land for the said purpose ...
may have to be taken into .consideration. +
c 35. Indisputably, for the purpose of computation of amount
of compensation a large number of factors have to be taken
into consideration, namely, nature and quality of land, whether
irrigated or unirrigated, facilities for irrigation like exist~nce of
well etc., presence of fruit bearing trees, the location of the land,
closeness to any road or highway, the evenness thereof
whether there exists any building or structure. [See Union of ..
India vs. Ranchod (AIR 2008 SC 938).
36. Recently, in Kera/a State Electricity Board (supra), this
Court held that so far as the compensation in relation to fruit
E bearing trees are concerned, the same would also depend
upon the facts and circumstances of each case; in support
whereof it, inter alia, noticed the decision of this Court in
Airports Authority of India vs. Satyagopa/ Roy [(2002) 3 SCC ... 527], wherein it was stated:
F "Hence, in our view, there was no reason for the High Court
not to follow the decision rendered by this Court in
Gurcharan Singh case and determine the compensation
payable to the respondents on the basis of the yield from
the trees by applying 8 years' multiplier. In this view of the
matter, in our view, the High Court committed error +
apparent in awarding compensation adopting the multiplier
of 18."
The manner, in which the High Court has dealt with the
H issue, in our opinion, cannot be appreciated.
~· NAVANATH & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 659
... _ [S.B. SINHA, J.] .,, .>-
37. A court of law must base its decision on appreciation A
of evidence brought on record by applying the correct legal
principles. Surmises and conjectures alone cannot form the
basis of a judgment.
~
38. We, for the foregoing reasons, are not in a position to
agree with the judgment of the High Court. It is set aside B
-
accordingly and that of the Reference Court restored. The
+ Appeals are allowed with costs. Counsel's fee assessed at
Rs.25,000/-.
D.G. Appeals, allowed. c