IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1345 OF 2011 [Arising out of SLP(C) No.14294/2007]

SHAIK IMAMBI .......APPELLANT  

Versus

SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LAND  ACQUISITION), TELEGU GANGA PROJECT

.....RESPONDENT

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withdrawn.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

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,  

2

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)

3

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  

4

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  

5

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  

6

follows:

(a)

 (b)

The amount assessed by the Land Acquisition  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)

The amount assessed by the Land Acquisition  Officer with reference to income from other  trees

Rs.8,35,957/-  

Rs.31,046/50  

(c) Compensation awarded by the LAO                           (a) + (b)

Rs.8,67,003/50

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

Rs.4,56,600/-  

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 )

7