http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: STATE OF HARYANA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: GURCHARAN SINGH & ANR. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT18/01/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. VENKATACHALA N. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR  106            1995 SCC  Supl.  (2) 637  JT 1995 (2)   345        1995 SCALE  (1)530

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: ORDER 1    This appeal arises from the judgment and decree of  the High  Court of Punjab & Haryana in RSA No.1137 of  1970  and batch  dated May 21, 1981.  An extent of 20 acres  38  cents was  notified  and published for acquisition  in  the  State Gazette under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on June 22, 1974  for  residential colony.  The lands  are  situated  in Panchkula,  near  Chandigarh, as satellite town.   The  Land Acquisition  Collector (for short ’the  Collector’)  awarded the  market value in his award dated June 25, 1976,  to  the Abadi  land  at the rate of Rs. 12,240/per acre and  to  the Gheir  Mumkin land @ Rs. 1200/- per acre.  In  addition,  he also awarded compensation to the fruit bearing trees in  the respective appeals as follows. R.F.A.NO.1137 OF 1979  = Rs.1,12,993.50 R.F.A.NO.1138 OF 1979  = Rs.1,56,659.40 R.F.A.NO.1354 OF 1979  = Rs.  40,842.00 R.F.A.NO.1355 OF 1979  = Rs.1,65,688.00 2.   On  reference  under s. 1 8, in his  award  and  decree dated December 12, 1978, the Addl.  District Judge  affirmed the  award of the Collector.  In other words, he passed  nil award.   On appeal, the High Court by confirming the  market value  of the land, enhanced the compensation to  the  fruit bearing  trees by 60 % of what was awarded by the  Collector and accordingly granted enhanced compensation with statutory benefits.  Thus this appeal by special leave. 347 3.   Ms.  Surichi  Agarwal, learned counsel for  the  State, contended  that the High Court has committed grave error  of law in upholding the determination of the compensation  both to  the  land as well as fruit bearing trees  and  has  also further committed error in enhancing the market value to the fruit  bearing trees in addition to the confirmation of  the compensation  separately awarded for the land and the  fruit bearing trees.  It is against the settle principle of law as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

laid  down  by this court in catena of decisions.   We  find force in the contention.  Sri Bagga, learned counsel for the respondents, contended that in the year 1966 the price index was at 144 points whereas in 1970 the index was found to  be at  -213  points.  The High Court, therefore, was  right  in increasing  the compensation to the fruit bearing  trees  by 60%.  We find no force in the contention.  It is settled law that   the  Collector  or  the  court  who  determines   the compensation  for  the land as well as fruit  bearing  trees cannot  determine them separately.  The compensation  is  to the  value  of  the  acquired land.   The  market  value  is determined  on  the basis of the  yield.   Then  necessarily applying  suitable multiplier, the compensation need  to  be awarded.  Under no circumstances the court should allow  the compensation on the basis of the nature of the land as  well as fruit bearing trees.  In other words, market value of the land  is determined twice over and one on the basis  of  the value  of the land and again on the basis of the  yield  got from  the fruit bearing trees.  The definition of  the  land includes  the benefits to arise from the land as defined  in s.3(a) of the Act.  After compensation is determined on  the basis  of  the value of the land from  the  income  applying suitable multiplier, then the trees would be valued only  as fire-wood  and  necessary compensation would be  given.   In this case, the High Court did not adopt this procedure.   We have  looked into the figures furnished in the  judgment  of the High Court of the amount awarded by the Officer himself. He too while determining the compensation at the rate of Rs. 12,240/- per acre on the basis of the yield, the  multiplier applied  is more than 8 years.  Under no circumstances,  the multiplier  should be more than 8 years multiplier as it  is settled  law of this court in catena of decisions that  when the  market  value is determined on the basis of  the  yield from  the trees or plantation, 8 years multiplier  shall  be appropriate  multiplier.  For agricultural land  12--  years multiplier shall be suitable multiplier. 4.       In  this case, the Collector applied  more  than  8 years  multiplier and awarded compensation.  The High  Court also has no adverted to this aspect of the matter.  The High Court  committed  error  of law  in  further  enhancing  the compensation.   Considered from this perspective,  since  we cannot  interfere with the award -of the  Collector,  though the  Collector  had  committed  palpable  error  of  law  in separately awarding the compensation to the land as well  as fruit  bearing  trees,  it  is  an  offer  which  cannot  be disturbed  because  of  s.25  of the  Acts.   The  rate.  of compensation  should have been less than what the  Collector has  awarded,  we  cannot reduce the amount  less  than  the amount  offered by the Collector, yet we have to  hold  that the  Collector, civil court and the High Court  should  have applied 8 years multiplier and determined the  compensation. They awarded much more than what the, claimant would  justly and  fairly be entitled to.  Therefore, further  enhancement of 60% by the High Court on the basis of the Price Index  is clearly illegal. 348 5.The  appeals  are accordingly allowed.  The  judgment  and decree  of  the High Court is set aside and  the  award  and decree   of  the  Reference  Court  is  affirmed.   In   the circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to  bear their own costs.