FA/446420/2007 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 4464 of 2007 To FIRST APPEAL No. 4476 of 2007 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11544 of 2007 In FIRST APPEAL No. 4464 of 2007 To CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11556 of 2007 In FIRST APPEAL No. 4476 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI : ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Appellant(s) Versus KANJI BHURA - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR SUNIT SHAH – G.P. WITH MS. TRUSHA PATEL AGP for Appellant(s) : 1 - 2. MR VIMAL M PATEL for Defendant(s) : 1, ========================================================= FA/446420/2007 2/4 JUDGMENT CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 02/09/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated 01.12.1998 passed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Junagadh in Land Reference Case Nos.246/1988 to 258/1988 whereby, the said reference cases were partly allowed. 2. The facts in brief are that the appellant – State proposed to acquire the lands situated in Vilage Shobhavadala [Laskar], Taluka Visavadar, District Junagadh, belonging to the respondent – claimants, for general purpose, under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. On completion of all the legal formalities, the L.A.O. passed his award dated 12.09.1986. Being aggrieved by the said award, the claimants preferred applications before the authority requesting to refer the issue to the competent Court for adjudication, which, ultimately, came to be numbered as References. The Court below, after appreciating the evidence on record, partly allowed the said references. Hence, these appeals. 3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. The reference Court has adopted the yield method for computing the amount of compensation and accordingly, deducted 50% of the amount towards cultivation FA/446420/2007 3/4 JUDGMENT expenses and adopted a multiplier of 10 years for ascertaining the market value of the acquired lands, which is in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court. Hence, I do not find any reasons to disturb the findings recorded by the Court below qua the same. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by the Court below while recording the said findings. 4. However, so far as the calculation of compensation for fruit- bearing trees in L.A. Case No.255 of 1988 is concerned, the same deserves interference in view of the fact that the claimant himself has stated in his deposition before the reference Court that the total production of Mangoes was 500 Kg. and that the price per Kg. was Rs.250/-. On that basis, the annual income would come to Rs.750 and if 20% thereof is deducted, the balance would come to Rs.600/- and Rs.60,000/- for 10 Mango trees. So far as Rayana trees are concerned, the claimant has stated that the total production was 40 Kg. and that the price per Kg. was Rs.2/-. Therefore, for two Rayana trees, the claimant will be entitled for Rs.1,280/-. In all, the claimants in F. A. No.4473/2007would be entitled for Rs.61,280/- for the fruit-bearing trees apart from other benefits awarded by the reference Court. Hence, the impugned award of the reference Court is required to be modified accordingly. 5. In view of the above, F.A Nos. 4464/2007 to 4472/2007 and 4474/2007 to 4476/2007 are dismissed. First Appeal No.4473/2007 FA/446420/2007 4/4 JUDGMENT is partly allowed to the extent that the original claimants will be entitled for Rs.61,280/- for the fruit-bearing trees and other benefits as awarded by the reference Court. The impugned award of the reference Court stands modified accordingly. The appeals stand disposed of. No order as to costs. The civil applications also stand disposed of accordingly. [K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*