Rules for valuation of well

 Mr. Dhanesha is tight-in his submission that the learned Judge has committed an error in not awarding any compensation for the wells existing on certain lands simply on the ground that the parties have failed to lead evidence in detail regarding the expenditure they had to incur while constructing such wells. So far as the evidence on record is concerned, there is no denial that there were wells in Survey Nos. 24, 21, 20, 25, 28, 39, 38 and 22/2, but no cross-examination on this point was made on behalf of the State. Simply because the agriculturists did not furnish what expenditure they had to incur, the learned Judge could not have rejected their claim in toto. The learned Judge should have at least relied on the oral evidence in this regard and should have awarded some compensation for the wells as well as for the engine rooms in some cases.

13. Though the claimants claimed to have made an exaggerated claim of having spent about Rs. 7000/ -to Rs. 8000/ - for the construction of each well, it appears from the original claims by the concerned claimants before the Land Acquisition Officer that they had claimed on an average Rs. 3,000/ - for the loss of well and Rs. 3,000/- for the loss of engine room. We are of the view that this moderate amount can be awarded to each concern appellant by way of compensation for the loss of each well and/or the engine room, in First Appeals Nos. 824/83,825/83, 826/83, 821/83, 1007/82 and 1008/82. So far as First Appeal No. h 83 is concerned, an amount of Ross. 1,000/ - only can be awarded as the construction of the well was incomplete when the land was acquired.

Citation: AIR1992Guj79

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT

First Appeal Nos. 994 to 1008 and 1015 of 1982 with cross objection Nos. 824 to 827 of 1983

Decided On: 28.06.1991

Decided On: 01.07.1991

Appellants: State of Gujarat and Ors.
Vs.
Respondent: Kathi Malsiya Vaghe

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
C.V. Rane and J.N. Bhatt, JJ.

1. Sixteen First Appeals Nos.994/82 to 1008/82 and No. 1015/82 under S. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, filed by the State of Gujarat arise from a common judgment and different awards delivered by the learned Second Extra Assistant Judge, Junagadh, in 16 Land Reference Cases Nos. 18/80, 19/80, 13/81, 14/81, 15/81, 12/81, 2/81, 3/81, 4/81, 5/81, 6/81, 7/81, 8/81, 9/81, 10/81 and 11/81 respectively. in respect of acquisition of different parcels of agricultural lands of village Malenka, in Mendarda Taluka of Junagadh District, acquired for the purpose of construction of Madhuvanti Dam under the Irrigation Scheme. The remaining four appeals have been filed by the original claimants against the awards made in Land Reference Cases Nos. 5181, 19/ 80, 12/ 81 and 4/ 8 1. The claimants have also filed cross-objections in the First Appeals No.994/82, 998/82, 1007/82, 1003/82 and 10017/82 filed by the State against those awards made in Land Reference Cases in which the claimants have not filed appeals. In short, the claimants as well as the State Government have challenged the awards made by the learned Judge in sixteen different Land Reference Cases.

2. The details regarding Survey Nos., quality, area and the number of fruit-bearing trees on the lands involved are tabulated as under:

3. Notification dated 25-11-1969 under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', was published in, the Government Gazette on 12-12-1969. After publication of the notification under S. 6 of the Act on 23-9-1970, and after serving the claimants with the notices under S.9 of the Act and after hearing them, the Special Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated 31-1-1973 granted compensation at the rate of 0. 37 Ps. per sq. mt., for nonirrigated or Jarayat land and at the rate of 0. 45ps. per sq. mt, for irrigated or Bagayat land. As the owners of the lands had claimed compensation at the rate of Re. 1.25 Ps. per sq. mt. for Jarayat land and Rs. 2.50 Ps. per sq, mt., for Bagayat land from the very beginning, they moved for a reference to the District Court under S. 18 of the Act. Thus, their claim for compensation was at the rate of Rs. 12500-/- per Hectare for Jarayat land and Rs. 25,000/ - per hectare for bagayat land as against the award by the Special Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of Rs. 3700/per hectare forjarayat land and Rs,. 4500/-per hectare for bagayat land.

4. All the references were consolidated at the request of the claimants and common evidence was recorded in LRC No. 18/ 80. No evidence was regarding any comparable sale instance was produced by either side. The claimants rested satisfied with leading oral evidence of some of the claimants and three other witnesses. The claimant of LRC No. 19/80, which the State's Appeal No. 995 / 81 and the claimants' appeal No. 825/83 has arisen, produced some documentary evidence. Some revenue records in the form of Pahnipatraks were also produced in order to show the agricultural produce and income from fruit-bearing trees in some cases. A map Ex. 52 in respect of the neighbouring village Ambala was also produced in order ot show that lands in Ambala were not comparable with the lands in Malenka. In this context, a coy of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in respect of the lands acquired for the same purpose from village Ambala was also produced in order to show that the value of the lands of Malenka would be certaimily higher than the value of the lands in Ambala, as determined by the High Court. The State Government examined the Talati of village Malenka, a Revenue Circle Officer and an Agricultural Supervisor for indicating the average yield from the fruit bearing trees and other agricultural produces like wheat, groundnut, millet, rachka, etc. The State Government also did not choose to produce any evidence regarding comparable sale instance. In view of this state of evidence, the learned Judge had to resort to the method of capitalisation in order to determine tile value of the lands involved in these appeals. The learned Judge observed that it would be natural for the claimants to make exaggerated claims and, therefore, the evidence of' the Agricultural Supervisor would afford a good guide. The learned Judge took into consideration the uncertainty involved in the agriculture occupation and the calamities that may have to be faced from time to time, and on an overall consideration of the relevant facts the learned Judge came to the conclusion that tile average net income in the year 1969 would he about Rs. 1501- per bigha (as in Saurashtra), and the fair-market value of suchjarayat land would be Rs. 1500 !-per bigha, on application of ten years multiple. The learned Judge also found that the bagayat lands would be valued at 1 1/2 times that is, at about Rs. 2320 - per bigha. The learned Judge rejected the claim for compensation In respect of' wells, engine rooms, pipe lines, etc., on the ground that the claimants had failed to lead any evidence in respect of the exact expenditure incurred by them in making such construction. The learned Judge also valued the fruit-bearing trees at ten times the yearly produce, and added this value to the value of the lands. The learned judge awarded solatium at the rate of 15% on the resulting sum in each case, and proportionate costs to the claimants. In short, the learned Judge awarded Rs.9,400/- per hectare in respect of jarayat land and Rs. 14,500/- per hectare in respect of bagayat lands, over and above the value of the fruit-bearing trees. It is these awards of the learned Judge that arc being challenged by the original claimants on the ground that the learned Judge should have awarded compensation at the rate claimed by them, while the awards are being challenged on behalf of the State Government on the ground that the learned Judge has committed an error in valuing some portion twice in the lands with fruit-bearing trees and the award made by the Special I-and Acquisition Officer reflected the correct market value.

__________________________________________________________________________________ F.A.by Arising By the S.Category H-A-Sq. Fruit State form L.R.C claim- No. of land Mt. bear ______________________ ants_________________________________________Trees________ 994/82 18/80 X-Obj. 42 Jarayat 3-00-48 995/82 19/80 825/83 24 Bagayat 18-86-86 79 996/82 13/81 26 Jarayat 10-42-07 2 997/82 14/81 35 Jarayat 02-83-34 3 998/82 15/181 X-Obj. 41 Jarayat 9-56-07 83 999/82 12/81 826/83 21 Bagayat 13-99-20 8 1000/82 2/81 27 Jarayat 2-83-28 1001/82 3/81 27 Jarayat 3-42-49 1002/82 4/81 824/83 20 Bagayat 9-51-02 34 1003/82 5 ) /81 824/83 25 Bagayat 9-85-42 83 1004/82 6/81 23 Jarayat 12-36-32 29 1-06-23 1005/82 7/81 22/1 Jarayat 3-83-45 3 1006 ' /82 8/81 28 Bagayat 0-1-47-01.42 1 1015/82 11,81 22/2 Bagayat 3-80-40 27 __________________________________________________________________________________

5. Mr. D.K. Trivedi, learned Incharge Government Pleader, appearing for the State of Gujarat, has mainly submitted that the learned Judge committed an error in not deducting the area of land on which fruit-bearing trees were standing from the total area which was valued for the purpose of capitalisation. He further submitted that the lands of Malenka could not have been valued at Rs. 1500/- or Rs. 2320/- per bigha, as the case may be, in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in respect of the lands of neighbouring village Ambala which had been acquired for the same purpose. On the other hand, it was submitted on behalf of the original claimants that the learned Judge had clearly committed an error in not awarding any compensation for the wells or engine rooms, situated on some of the lands, even though the existence of such walls or rooms was not at all challenged either in cross examination or by leading evidence. It was further submitted by Mr. Dhaneslha, learned advocate on behalf of the claimants, that the learned Judge did not discuss the oral evidence of the claimants regarding the agricultural produce or the prevailing price of such produce nor did he logically a necessary inference form the evidence of the Agricultural Supervisor or the Telati who had been examined by the Government itself. In short, Mr. Dhanesha submitted that the arnounts as claimed bv the claimants should have been awarded by the learned Judgq on the basis of the evidence of the Agricultural Supervisor and the Telati, who were Government witnesses.

6. So far as the first submission made by Mr. D.K. Trivedi is concerned, it is clear that the learned Judge has added the value of the fruit-bearing trees to the value of the lands in certain cases. Ordinarily, a tree can be presumed to occupy about 6 sq. mt. of land, and it would be difficult at this stage, in absence of definite evidence on the point, to estimate the exact area that may be occupied by different kinds of trees. However, it appears from the overall evidence on record that some trees are standing on the hedges of some lands while so far as First Appeal No.995/82 is concerned, the entire land admeasuring 32 Gunthas, which is described as garden land in the revenue record, is occupied by 79 fruit-bearing trees. It is, therefore, obvious that the land ad measuring 32 gunthas of Survey No. 24 will have to be excluded for the purpose of valuation from the total area of 18 hectare 86 area and 86 sq. mt. So far as other lands are concerned, some area will have to be deducted from the concerned land at rate of 6 sq. mt/per, tree. Hence, Mr. Trivedi is right in his submission that the following deductions will have to be' made from the total area of lands involved, in each appeal:

No such question of deducting area in respect of fruit-bearing trees arises in the remaining cases. To this extent Mr.Trivedi succeeds in his submission, and we will have to make necessary deductions at the time of placing valuation on the lands involved.

________________________________________________________________________________________________ F. A. LRC By S. A rea Area to Area to be No. by claim- No. H. A. Sq. M. be deducted valued on the State ant Gs. basis of agri. produce 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 H.A.--Sq.M ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 995/82 191/80 825/83 24 18-86-86 32 18-54-86 996/82 13-81 26 10-42-07 No calculation 10-42-07 need be made regarding 2 trees standing on this land 997/82 14-81 35 02-83-34 No calculation 02-83-34 need be made regarding 3 trees standing on this land 1005/82 7/81 22/1 03-83-45 03-83-45 1008/82 10/81 X. Obj. 38 01-47-01.42 Nothing 01-47-01.42 substantial will have to be deducted in res pect of one tree 998/82 15/81 X. Obj. 41 09-56-07 About 500 09-51-07 sq. mt. for 83 trees 999/82 12/81 826/83 21 13-99-20 48 sq. mt. 13-98-72 will have to be ded ucted for 34 trees 10.02/82 04/.81 .927/83' 20 .09-51-02 q. Mt. 09-48-98 will have to be ded ucted for 8 trees 1003/82 05/81 824/83 25 09-85-42 About 500 09-80-42 sq. mt. will have to be deducted for 83 trees 1007/82 9/81 X-Obj. 39 02-86-08 426 sq. Mt. 02-87-82 will have to be dedu cted for 71 trees. 1015/82 11 /81 22/2 03-08-40 162 sq. Mt. 03-78-78 will have to be deducted for 27 trees.

7. Mr. Trivedi has further referred to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 10/75, 11/75 and 12/75 decided on 29-12-1980, in respect of certain lands of the neighbouring village Ambala, which had been acquired for the sarne purpose in the year 1981, and according to Mr. Trivedi's submission, value of the lands in Malenka cannot be more than Rs. 81/- per area for jarayat lands and Rs. 85/- per area for bagayat lands, as awarded by the High Court. So far as the lands of Ambala are concerned, all the claimants and their witnesses have specifically stated that the lands of Ambala were of an inferior quality they are situated in a hilly area, thereby resulting into lesser fertility. A copy of the judgment is found at Ex. 15 in lower Court's record. A look at the judgment shows that several sale instances were produced by the parties for the purpose of valuation of the lands of Ambala, and it was on the basis of comparison of such sale instances that the lower court as well as the High Court came to tile conclusion that the lands could be valued at a particular rate. No evidence had been led regarding agricultural produce or yield from fruits. Oil the other hand, no evidence has been led in the present cases regarding comparable sale instances, and tile entire emphasis is placed on tile net return from agricultural income and fruit trees. Hence, the basis for determining compensation in the present sixteen cases and the basis for determining compensation of the lands of Ambala are entirely different, and the judgment of the Division Bench in First Appeals No, 10/75, 11/75 and 12/75 cannot be of any use in determining compensation of' the lands of Malenka, since nobody says that the lands are comparable. Even no contention was raised on behalf of the State in the lower court that the value of Malenka lands should be based on the value of Ambala lands. Hence this contention of Mr. Trivedi has no substance and It requires to be rejected.

8. Ordinarily, therefore, we would have accepted tile valuation placed by the learned .Judge, and we would have deducted pro rata value of the lands occupied by fruit-bearing trees in certain cases. However, we have to still consider the submissions of Mr. Dhanesha on tile point of valuation of the lands placed by the learned Judge. The learned Judge has prepared a table showing net income per bigha from various crops like, ground nut, millet, jowar, wheat, cotton, etc. The learned Judge has accepted the average net income at Rs. 150/- per bigha for jarayat land of medium quality, and he has applied a multiple of 10 for arriving at the value of such lands. Mr. Dhanesha submitted that the court should have applied multiple of 20. He further submitted that the net income would be something more in view of the oral evidence of the claimants and the Government's witness-Shyamjibhai. He entered into a thread-bare comparison of such evidence and the entries made in the table by the learned Judge. It is not possible to have Such a comparison, and the learned Judge has given cogent reasons for arriving at a rough calculation regarding the net income. The learned Judge has referred to several factors like, rainfall. vagaries of climate, invasion by inspects and calamities like untimely rains, shortage of rain, cyclone, famine, severe beat, etc., and irregularity in supply of canal water, if there be any, and other factors which may have varying effect oil the agricultural production from year to year. There Is no exact yard-stick for measuring the net income and there is also no exact yard-stick for arriving at the fair market value of the land on the basis of the agricultural produce. Valuation of land itself is a matter of guess work , and after arriving at such a figure of net income per year, . it will have to be capitalised by a proper multiplier.

9. In Union of India V. Sint. Shanti Devi. MANU/SC/0307/1983 : AIR 1983 SC 1190. Their- Lordships adopted a multiplier of 15 years'purchase in determining the compensation payable in respect of the lands acquired in or about the year 1962-63. The following facts weighed with Their Lordships as pointed Out in para16 of' the judgment :

"16. A perusal of the decisions referred to above and some others which have not been cited here shows that in India the multiplier which is adopted in determining the compensation by the capitalisation method has been 33 1/3, 25, 20, 16 2/3, 11 and 8. The number of years' purchase has gradually decreased as the prevailing rate of interest realisable from safe investments has gradually increased - the higher the rate of interest, the lower the number of years' purchase. This method of valuation involves capitalising the net income that the property can fairly be expected to produce and the rate of capitalisation is the percentage of return on his investment that a willing buyer would expect from the property during the relevant period. It was once felt that the relevant rate of interest that should be taken into consideration was the interest which gilt-edged securities or Government bonds would normally fetch. The safety and liquidity of the investment in bonds were relied on as the twin factors to take the view that the interest on gilt-edged securities should alone be taken into consideration. This was at a time when there were not many avenues of safe investments and investment in private commercial concerns was not quite reliable. But from the year 1959-60 circumstances have gradually changed. There are many State Banks and nationalised banks in which deposits made are quite safe. Even in the share market we have many 'blue chips'. Which command stability and other attendant benefits such as the possibility of issue of bonus shares and rights shares and appreciation of the value of the shares themselves. They are attracting a lot of capital investment. A return of 10% per annum on such safe investments is almost assured. Today nobody thinks of investing on land which would yield a net income of just 5% to 6% per annum. A higher return of the order of 10% is usually anticipated. Even in the years 1962 and 1963 an investor in agricultural land yield a net annual expected annual net return of at least 8%. It means that if the land yielded a net annual income of Rs. 8/- a willing buyer of land would have paid for it Rs. 100/- i.e., a little more than 12 times the annual net income. The multiplier for purposes of capitalisation would be about thirteen."

10. In Special al Land Acquisition Officer, Davangere v. P. Veerabhadarappa MANU/SC/0244/1984 : (1984) 2 SCC 120 : (AIR 1984 SC 774). Their Lordships, after discussing the return of gilt-edged securities, i.e., Government securities and the greater return from fixed deposits with nationalised banks, national saving certificates, unit trust and other forms of Government certificates or share market, came to the following conclusion:

"19. As already stated, some 20 to 30 years back i.e., till the early '50s, it was taken as a settled rule of practice, that the capitalized value of agricultural lands should be arrived at 20 years' purchase having regard to the rate of interest on gilt-edged securities at five per cent. That rule no longer can be adhered to in view of the changed economic situation. In the early '70s, people believed that investment in housing was more secure than other forms of Government securities in respect of safety of investment. Investment in housing involves certainity of labour and effort such as maintenance, collection of rent, payment of taxes et cetera. The rate of return expected there fore was I 1/2 percent to 2 1/2 percent more than what was expected from gilt-edged securities. A person investing his capital in agricultural lands would ordinarily expect a return of 2 per cent to 3 per cent more than what he could obtain from gilt-edged securities or other forms of safe investment such as fixed deposits in scheduled banks, National Savings Certificates, Unit Trust et cetera or on blue chips i.e., on stocks and shares in the public or private sector which yield a much greater return.

20. In regard to investment in agricultural lands, there are many imponderables inasmuch as the investor runs a much greater risk than the risk that he runs in investments in housing, which consists in vagaries of weather and other uncertainties. There is no security of principal, no liquidity of investment nor any certainty of income. The appreciation of princpal or income is also uncertain. The reasons for these is that agricultural lands are not readily transferable under the various land reform legislations e.g. laws relating to ceiling on agricultural holdings under the existing State laws and tenancy laws which place restrictions on transfer of such lands with concomitant danger of effacement of the rights of the absentee-landlords and the creation of rights in the tillers of the soil. In evaluating the rate of return which would ordinarily satisfy an investor in such a property, the risk factor has further to be evaluated. There may be total or partial failure of crops either through failure of rain or drought, or inadequate or excessive rainfall. There, may be a, failure of crops on account of locust invasion or a insects or pests. The cost inputs such as seeds, water, fertilizer, labour charges, etc. would very from year to year. If the overall cost goes up, the income from agricultural produce would -be comparatively less. The fluctuations in price of agricultural produce introduce a greater deal of uncertainty in regard to the income that can expected from the sale of the produce. If the yield of the crop in other producing countries is large, or the market prices prevailing in such countries are low, the prices of such agricultural produce in India would go down. In view of these considerations, an investor would expect a much higher rate of return so that the risk factor is properly discounted.

21. In the premises, when the rate of return on investment was 8.25 per cent in the years 1971 and 1972, person investing his capital in agricultural lands would ordinarily expect 2 per cent to 3 per cent more than what he could obtain from gilt-edged securities or other forms of safe investment and therefore the proper multiplier to be applied for the purpose of capitalization could not, in any event, exceed "ten". In the present case, the State Government however contends that the proper multiple to be applied should be 12 1/2 in computation of the capitalized value of the lands in these cases having regard to the rate of return of 8 per cent at the relevant time i.e., on the date of the notification under S. 4(l) of the Act. In view of this, it must be held that the multiple of 121/2 should be applied in computation of the capitalised value of the lands."

11. In the present case, the lands were acquired in the year 1969, and the return in safe investments must have been lesser than 8.25 per cent, and in fact neither side has pointed out the rate of return existing in the year 1969. Hence, even if we assume for the time being that the rate of return even in the year 1969 was 8.25 per cent, we would be justified in adopting the multiplier of 12.5 in' computing the capitalized value of the lands. The result would be that the computation awarded by the lower Court will have to be enhanced by 25% in general.

12. Mr. Dhanesha is tight-in his submission that the learned Judge has committed an error in not awarding any compensation for the wells existing on certain lands simply on the ground that the parties have failed to lead evidence in detail regarding the expenditure they had to incur while constructing such wells. So far as the evidence on record is concerned, there is no denial that there were wells in Survey Nos. 24, 21, 20, 25, 28, 39, 38 and 22/2, but no cross-examination on this point was made on behalf of the State. Simply because the agriculturists did not furnish what expenditure they had to incur, the learned Judge could not have rejected their claim in toto. The learned Judge should have at least relied on the oral evidence in this regard and should have awarded some compensation for the wells as well as for the engine rooms in some cases.

13. Though the claimants claimed to have made an exaggerated claim of having spent about Rs. 7000/ -to Rs. 8000/ - for the construction of each well, it appears from the original claims by the concerned claimants before the Land Acquisition Officer that they had claimed on an average Rs. 3,000/ - for the loss of well and Rs. 3,000/- for the loss of engine room. We are of the view that this moderate amount can be awarded to each concern appellant by way of compensation for the loss of each well and/or the engine room, in First Appeals Nos. 824/83,825/83, 826/83, 821/83, 1007/82 and 1008/82. So far as First Appeal No. h 83 is concerned, an amount of Ross. 1,000/ - only can be awarded as the construction of the well was incomplete when the land was acquired.

14. Mr. Dhanesha's second contention was that the lower Court committed an error in not taking into consideration the oral evidence of the claimants regarding the annual yield and the prevailing price of crops at the relevant time. He further submitted that reliance could not have been placed on the evidence of the Government witnesses only. He further submitted that the lower Court committed an error in finding the net income of Jarayat land per bigha to be Rs. 150/ - only. According to Mr. Dhanesha, this finding was based on the table prepared by the learned Judge regarding the agricultural production a.0d agricultural expenses in respect of different crops, which according to Mr. Dhanesha was not consistent with figures given by the expert agricultural supervisor, Shyamjibhai. Mr. Dhanesha submitted that even if the -evidence of the agricultural supervisor and the Talati is accepted, the net income per bigha would be much higher. Apparently it appears to be so. But if we go through the reasoning of the learned Judge, we find that the learned Judge has taken a balanced view by adopting a guarded approach. The learned Judge has prepared a chart of the net income of the claimants from various crops, in para 9 of the judgment, and the net income reflected in this table is certainly higher than the net income which has been accepted as a basis by the learned Judge for determining the market value. However, the learned Judge has also taken into account negative factors like vagaries of monsoon, uncertainties of climate, possible infection and invasion by insects and locusts, calamities like shortage of rain, water, cyclone, famine, shortage of seeds and mature and the quality of land. The learned Judge has found that the result as per the table reflecting higher net income can be secured only when the land is of superior quality and fertility and other climatic factors are good every year. The learned Judge has found that the lands which were acquired were of medium quality. The learned Judge was, therefore, right in holding that the net average income of the jarayat land in question was about Rs. 150/per bigha. Moreover, in view of the fact that the claimants of bagayat lands used to grow different crops during winter, and not always cotton or wheat, we do not want to interfere with the finding of the learned Judge that the bagayat lands in this area should be valued at 11/2 times the value of the jarayat lands. The learned Judge has placed the value of bagayat lands at Rs 2320/-per bigha; a multiplier of 121/2 will be applied in computation of capitalized value of such lands.

15. So far as the value placed by the ferried Judge on fruit bearing trees is concerned, we are not inclined to interfere, In view of the fact that the learned Judge has not only considered the possible multiplier of 20 years purchase, as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Rev. Brother Joseph, MANU/SC/0352/1973 : AIR 1973 SC 2463, but also the fact that certain fruit trees bear fruits not every year but every alternate year and so the proper multiplier would be 10 and not 20. We do not think that the learned Judge has committed any error in adopting the multiplier of 10 in such cases. Moreover, the normal life of the fruit bearing trees like mango trees, banana, lemon trees, pears and other trees giving timber wood or fuel wood like babul, banyan or pipal is not uniform, it would be difficult and almost impossible to adopt in each case a different multiplier for different trees. So far as S. No. 26 involved in First Appeal No. 995/82 is concerned, there were no doubt, 35 mango trees and 44 other trees, but the value of mango trees would be off-set by the lesser value of the other trees. Hence, if the lower Court has adopted multiplier of 10 in the case of fruit bearing trees, we do not think it requires interference at this stage because of some difference in value of different trees on a detailed calculation, as the interest of the claimants holding bagayat lands having different type of fruit-bearing trees has been sufficiently considered by the lower Court so far as this aspect is concerned.

16. Hence, the following result emerges:

(i) In case of non-irrigated or jarayat lands, there will be 25% increase in the compensation awarded by the lower Court.

(ii) In case of irrigated or bagayat lands, with fruit bearing trees, the portion of the lands occupied by the fruit bearing trees will have e to be deducted from the total area.

(iii) After such deduction the compensation for the remaining lands will be increased by 2 5 %.

(iv) The value of the fruit bearing trees as awarded by the lower Court will be added in the aforesaid cases of bagayat lands.

(v) An amount of Rs. 3,000 - will be added for the loss of each well and an amount of Rs. 3,000/ - will also be added in case of loss of each engine room, but in First Appeal No.826/83 filed by the original claimant, only Rs. 1,000/ - will have to be added for the loss-of the incomplete well.

(vi) Solatium at the rate of 15% will have to be awarded on the total amount.

(vii) The resulting amount will bear an interest at the rate of 4 1/2 per cent per annum from the date of taking possession till payment.

17. In the result

(A) First Appeals Nos. 994/82 to 1008 ' /82 and First Appeal No. 1015/82 filed by the State of Gujarat are dismissed with costs. Cross-objections filed in First Appeals Nos. 994/82, 998/82, 1007/82 and 1008/82 are allowed and additional compensation at the rate shown in the table below is ordered to be awarded to the respondents.

(A) First Appeals Nos. 824/83, 825, 83, 826/83 and 827/83 filed by the original claimants are allowed in additional compensation at the rate shown in the table below is awarded, with proportionate costs.

(B) Solatium at the rate of 15% will be awarded on the amounts mentioned in the table. Interest at the rate of 4 1/2 per cent per annum will also be paid to the appellants in First Appeals Nos. 824/83, 835/83, 826/83and 827/83 and also to the respondents in First Appeals Nos. 994/ 82, 998/ 82, 1007/ 82,and 1008/82 form the date of taking possession till payment. Decree accordingly.

I. Appeals filed 25% Addl. Well/ Total by state Compensation to Engine respondents who have Room filed cross-objections ____________________________________________________________________________________ 1. FA. No. 994/ 82 Rs. 7,070.00 7,070,' 2. F.A. No. 9981/ 82 Rs. 21,780.00 21,780,' 3. F.A. No. 1007/82 Rs. 4,600.00 + 3000 7,600 /_ 4. F.A. No. 1008/82 Rs. 3,330.00 + 3000 6,330,' II. Appeals filed by 25% Addl. Well/ Total org. claimants Compensation to org. Engine claimants-appelants Room 1. F.A. No. 824/ 83 Rs. 34,820.00 + 3000 + 3000 40,820/; 2.F.A. No. 825/ 83 Rs. 62,600.00 + 3000 + 3000 1 68,600/- 3. F.A. No. 826/ 83 Rs. 50,630,00 + 1000 51,630/- 4. F.A. No. 827/ 83 Rs. 34,100.00 + 3000 37,100,/

18. Order accordingly.

Print Page