HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU L.A.A.S.No. 598 of 2006 JUDGMENT: 1. The appellants in this land acquisition appeal are the claimants in O.P.No.74 of 1999 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gudur. Impugning the Order, dt. 15.11.2005 passed by the reference court on the ground of inadequacy of compensation, the present appeal is preferred. 2. Facts in brief are that an extent of Ac.6-83 cents of land belonging to the claimants, comprised in survey No.469/A, with different fruit bearing trees existing there on, situated at Gundavolu village of Rapur Mandal, was acquired for the purpose of foreshore submersion of Kandaleru reservoir under Telugu Ganga Project. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (‘the Act’) was issued on 20.12.1995; it was followed by declaration under Section 6 of the Act; and eventually, the Land Acquisition Officer (‘L.A.O.’) passed an award on 27.09.1997, fixing the market value for category-I lands at Rs.14,000/- per acre and for category-II lands at Rs.5000/- per acre. So far as the fruit bearing trees are concerned, for mango trees a consolidated amount of Rs.23,753/-; for lime trees, Rs.2,933/-; for coconut trees, Rs.5,432/-; for guva trees, Rs.257/-; for tamarind trees, Rs.1,271/-; and for pomegranate trees an amount of Rs.6,006/-, were awarded. The amount is stated to have be quantified based on the recommendations made by the Assistant Director of Horticulture and engineering department. 3. On appreciation of all the evidence, oral and documentary, the reference Court has fixed the value of each Lime tree at Rs.80/- and the value of each Mango tree at Rs.175/-. The record indicates that there are 15 lime trees and 83 Mango trees. With regard to the other trees, the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer was not disturbed. Aggrieved thereby, the claimants have filed the present appeal, assailing the order dated 15.11.2005 of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Gudur, the reference court. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has contended that a per the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, and the award dated 27.09.1997, apart from Lime and Mango trees, there were several other fruit bearing trees, which were omitted from consideration by the reference court. The learned counsel has laid stress on the fact that Government issued G.O.Ms.No.338/63/1988 to fix the market value of different fruit bearing trees, but the guidelines given in the said GO have also been ignored by the reference Court without any basis. It is contended that despite numerous precedents laid down by the Supreme Court as well as this Court, the primary authority and the reference Court have not taken into account the multiplier method to fix the value of the fruit bearing trees. It is further contended that the claimants claimed compensation for 41 Mango Trees and 5 Lime Trees, 2 Tamarind Trees, 150 Pomegranate trees, apart from one thatched house. The LAO and the reference Court have given a very summary treatment to all the claims made by the appellants. 5. Summarizing his submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant- land owners has stated that the oral evidence of CW-1 & CW-2 and Ex. A-1 to A-16 clearly show that the appellants have raised Ganesh Variety, which yields more fruits than other pomegranate varieties, that the value of each pomegranate tree ought to have been taken as Rs.3,600, and that the by the time of notification the age of trees was 5 years. It has further been contended that as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Verareddy Kumaraswamy Reddy vs. State of A.P[1], the principle of capitalization method should be life time of the tree x the annual income. The reference court, however, has not followed the capitalization method. Even as per the NABARD guidelines, each pomegranate tree yields 100 to 150 fruits, that if each fruit’s price is taken at Rs.3/-, and that if average yield of each tree is taken at 150 fruits, the yield of each tree must come to Rs.450/-. By deducting the agricultural expenses, the net income per tree in its life time must be more than Rs.3,600/- per tree. 6. It is further contended that the evidence of CW-1 and CW-2 and Ex.A1, A5, A6, A7, A7, A9, A15 and A16 clearly establish the number of trees, yield per tree, etc. Finally, the learned counsel has relied on the decision of this court in AS. No.1749 of 2004, decided on 01-03-2013 and A. S. No.3798 of 2000 and A. S. No.2081 of 2000 both decided on 05-09-2013. 7. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, has strenuously defended the award, as modified by the reference Court. He has contended that the reference Court has already been liberal in granting compensation to the fruit bearing trees, at the rate specified above, which, in the opinion of the Government, is on the higher side. Despite the same, the Government has not chosen to disturb the said findings, so that a quietus could be given to the issue. It is contended that the claim on the part of the appellants is highly exaggerated. Though the burden lay on the claimants to establish the actual number of trees, their age and the annual yield, the claimants could not place before the reference Court any cogent material to come to any other conclusion than what has been arrived at by the reference Court. In sum and substance, the learned Government pleader has submitted that the order of the reference Court is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents, apart from perusing the record. 9. A perusal of the record shows that during the course of trial, the claimants have examined CWs. 1 and 2 and marked Exs. A.1 to A.16. On the part of respondent Land Acquisition Officer, apart from examining himself as RW.1, he marked Exs. B.1 and B.2. Ex.B.1 is the Certified Copy of the Report of Assistant Director of Horticulture, Nellore; whereas Ex.B.2 is the attested copy of the report of Executive Engineer, TGP, Division No.I, Nellore. 10. Most of the documents marked by the claimants relate to the previous awards and orders passed under various acquisitions in the vicinity. Ex.A.15 is the report of the Committee on the evaluation of Lime trees; whereas Ex.A.16 is the Letter dated 23.11.1989 from the Director of Horticulture. 11. It is evident that the claimants have not laid much stress on the value of the land, as they have not chosen to file any registration extracts of contemporaneous sales to prove the existing market value of the lands; nor have they lead much oral evidence in that regard. It is, as observed from the record, felt by the reference Court that since a comprehensive value is fixed for the fruit bearing trees, it is not necessary to determine the market value of the lands appropriately. 12. Dealing with the aspect of the value of fruit bearing trees, it has come on record that by the date of draft notification, the age of the lime trees is about six years, the gestation period being five years. Based on Ex.A.6, which is a copy of Memo No.664/K2/1985, dt. 20.09.1986, the reference Court has fixed the value of lime trees at Rs.80/- for each tree. A period of five years is taken as multiplier. Though the claimants have sought Rs.6000/- for each mango tree, the reference Court has fixed Rs.175/- per tree, by taking five years as multiplier. For 35 Coconut trees, the reference Court has refused to disturb the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. In fact, in the award, a consolidated amount of Rs.5,432/- was given for 35 Coconut trees. Even for Tamrind trees, the reference Court has refused to interfere with the amount fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The record reveals that a consolidated amount of Rs.1,271/- was awarded for tamarind trees. Against the claim of Rs.2,500/- for each pomegranate tree, the total number being 150, the reference Court has not disturbed the consolidated sum of Rs.6,066/- awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Finally for the guava trees, an amount of Rs.257/- was awarded and the same was confirmed by the reference Court. Thus, it is evident that only with regard mango and lime trees, there was redetermination of the value; with regard to rest of the trees, there is no modification. Despite a claim of Rs.90,000/- for the shed said to have been in existence in the land under acquisition, and a claim of Rs.60,000/- for the vacant piece of land said to be abutting the shed, the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer has not been disturbed by the reference Court. 13. From a perusal of the record and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants, it is evident that not much stress has been laid by the appellants on the value of the land as fixed by the L.A.O., but a lot of stress has been laid on the alleged omission of the L.A.O. to consider the value of the trees, despite the abundant evidence and documentary proof produced by the appellants. While affirming the award dated 27.09.997 of the L.A.O., the reference court has placed reliance on Chaturbhuj Pande and others v. Collector, Raigarh, Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi, District Social Welfare Officer (L.A.) , Guntur v. P.Varalakshmamma and Koyyappathodi M.Ayisha Umma v. State of Kerala. 14. In all the above cases, it has been reiterated that the expression ‘land’ includes benefits to arise out of land, things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to earth and accordingly the trees that are standing on the land are a component part of the land acquired, and as such, the fixation of market value of the land always takes into its fold the value of the trees standing thereon. In other words, there could not be a separate valuation of the lands and the trees, which have to be taken cumulatively in determining the value of the land. 15. Insofar as the documentary evidence produced by the appellants is concerned, Ex.A.1 dated 05.06.1985, is a letter No.F(3)3830/85; Ex.A.2, a certified copy of Decree in LAOP 58 of 1990 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Gudur; Ex.A.3, the judgment in L.A.O.P.No.139 of 1988 and batch; Ex.A.4, a copy of Judgment in LAOP 56 of 1993; Ex.A.5 is Xerox copy of G.O.Ms.No.338, dt. 16.03.1988; Ex.A.6, Certified copy of Memo No.664/K2/85, dt. 20.09.1986; Ex.A.7, Xerox copy of G.O.Ms.No.427, dt. 3.6.1998; Ex.A.8, a certified copy of Award in LAOP 446 of 1989; Ex.A.9, a certified copy of letter issued by Joint Collector, dt. 28.01.1984, Ex.A.10, a certified copy of Order in CRP.No.3763/93, dt. 03.03.1994; Ex.A.11, a certified copy of Order in LAOP No.112 of 1992, dt. 28.04.2004; Ex.A.12, certified copy of Order in Award No.6/2004-2005, dt. 25.10.2004; Ex.A.13, a certified copy of Judgment in L.A.O.P.No.388 of 1988; Ex.A.14, a certified copy of Judgment in LAOP No.58 of 1990; Ex.A.15, a certified copy of report of committee on the evaluation of lime trees; and Ex.A.16 is a certified copy of letter No.F93 2164/89, dt. 23.11.1989 from Director of Horticulture. 16. It may be relevant to recall to the mind that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has recently reviewed the law on awarding compensation to the fruit bearing trees in Sk. Imambi v. Spl. Depy. Collector, wherein it was held: “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 the decision in Commr.-cum-Land Acquisition Officer v. 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 Land Acquisition Officer v. P. Veerabhadarappa (1984) 2 SCC 120; Land Acquisition Officer v. Madivalappa Basalingappa Melavanki (1995) 5 SCC 670; Land Acquisition Officer v. Virupax Shankar Nadagouda (1996) 6 SCC 124, Revenue Divl. Officer v. M. Ramakrishna Reddy (2011) 11 SCC 648.) But no such special circumstances are made out. 7. 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.” 17. Recently, following the above ratio, a Division Bench of this Court has held in t h e Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) v. Peddireddy Madhava Reddy and others (A. S No.1749 of 2004), a Division Bench of this Court through its Order, dt.1-3-2013, has answered the issue as follows: “Having regard to such a detailed evidence available with regard to the yield from the fruit bearing trees, it appears to us that the compensation should have been determined on yield basis by applying the appropriate multiplier. In identical circumstances, Asst. Commissioner-Cum-Land Acquisition Officer v. S.T. Pompanna Setty as reported in (2005) 9 SCC 662), it was held that where compensation is awarded on yield basis multiplier ’10’ is considered to be proper and appropriate. While relying upon the principles laid down in the said decision, the learned counsel for the respondents/Cross-objectors submitted that the compensation for trees may be awarded by applying multiplier ‘10’. However, the learned Government Pleader vehemently contended that the said issue requires consideration by the Reference Court and therefore the matter may be remanded for fixing the compensation on yield basis by adopting the multiplier system. … Accordingly, instead of remanding the matter, we deem it appropriate to give a quietus to the controversy by fixing the compensation for the fruit bearing trees as under: For Mango, Acid Lime, Coconut, Guava, Jack-fruit and Sapota (Sapodilla), the claimants-respondents/cross-objectors shall be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per each tree….” 18. A perusal of the award, dt.27-09-1997 would show that no proper exercise has been undertaken in fixing the value of the trees. It is simply stated, “(B) Value on account of 304 Citrus Trees Rs.50,071/-“. Such an approach as this, needless to say, is arbitrary. 19. Without further discussion, in the light of the ratio laid down in A.S.No.1749 of 2004, disposed on 01.03.2013 and A.S.No.3798 of 2000, disposed of in the month of September, 2013, as well as the decision rendered by this very bench in L.A.A.S.No.427 of 2009, the value of the fruit bearing trees is hereby fixed. 20. In the light of the principles laid down by this Court in the above cases, we propose to rely on the market value fixed per tree by the earlier Division Bench of this in Court in Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) v. Peddireddy Madhava Reddy and others. Thus, having regard to the evidence of PW-1 & PW-2, as well as the market value assessed under Ex.A15, and after appreciating the same in the light of the above precedents of the Apex Court and this Court, we feel that it will subserve the ends of justice if the market value of the trees is fixed in the following manner: Type of fruit bearing tree No. Of Trees Value per Tree Lime Tree 22 Rs.3,000/- Mango Tree 138 Rs.3,000/- Coconut Tree 35 Rs.3,000/- Tamarind Tree 2 Rs.6,000/- Pomegranate Tree 150 Rs.2,000/- Guva Tree 3 Rs.3000/- 21. The landowners have sought compensation for two structures, i.e., thatched houses. This court, however, is not inclined to consider those structures separately to determine any additional value for the same. In fact, the land value as has been fixed takes into its fold the value of the fixtures or appurtenants that have been in existence on the land. Hence, a separate for the said structures, etc., is disallowed. 22. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the value of fruit bearing trees by fixing the same in the manner indicated above. The appellants-claimants are also entitled to statutory benefits like 30% solatium and 12% additional market value on the enhanced amount. They are further entitled to the interest on the enhanced market value at 9% from the date of taking possession up to one year and thereafter 15% till the enhanced amount is paid or deposited in the court. It is made clear that unless and until the appellants-claimants pay the deficit court fee on the differential amount, the decree shall not be drafted. As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petition, if any, pending shall stand closed. ______________________ ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J _______________________ DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J Date: .11.2013 siva [1] (2006) 2 SCC 670