Bombay High Court
Thr State Of Maharashtra vs 1. Shri. Laxman Nathu Mhatre And Ors. on 9 September, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:37538
FA 1637-09 & Cr Obj
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1637 OF 2009
WITH
CROSS OBJECTION (ST) NO. 11554 OF 2019
The State of Maharashtra, SLAO, ]
Metro Centre No.3, Panvel, Raigad. ] ...Appellant.
Versus
1. Laxman Nathu Mhatre. ]
2. Dhamubai Yadav Mhatre. ]
3. Thakubai Nathu Mhatre (Deceased) ]
R/o: Dapoli, Tal-Panvel, Dist-Raigad. ] ...Respondents.
----------
Mr. A.R. Patil, AGP for Appellant-State.
Mr. Shriram S. Kulkarni and Mr. Gaurav Ugale for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
----------
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.
Reserved on : July 10, 2025.
Pronounced on : September 9, 2025.
[Through Video Conferencing].
JUDGMENT :
1. The present Appeal and the Cross-Objection impugns the
Judgment and Award dated 26th July, 2006, passed by the Reference
Court in LAR No.1562 of 2000 filed under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894. [for short, "L.A. Act, 1894"]. Common
submissions were advanced by learned counsel for the parties. For
sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their status before
the Reference Court as Claimant and Opponent.
2. The Claimant is the owner of land bearing Survey No.19/5 area
sa_mandawgad/ Patil _SR 1 of 21
FA 1637-09 & Cr Obj
0.24 Are, S.No.26/3 area 23.5 Are, S.No.33/4 area 20 Are, S.No.36/5
area 37 Are, S.No.87/2 area 63 Are, S.No.90/1A area 28.4 Are,
S.No.112/17 area 11 Are, total admeasuring Hectare 2.06.9 Are
including 374 Alphonso Mango Trees and 3 Raival Mango Trees,
situated at Dapoli, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad.
3. The Notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act, 1894 was
issued on 3rd February, 1970 for acquisition of the land for the
purpose of "Planned Development and Utilisation of said lands in
Trans Harbour Panvel and Trans Thana Creek area for Industrial
Commercial and residential purpose". Section 6 notification was
published on 25th September, 1972 and Award under Section 11 was
passed on 27th June, 1986. Being aggrieved by the compensation
awarded, the Claimant sought reference under Section 18 of L.A. Act,
1894 before the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alibag being L.A.R
No.1562 of 2000.
4. The impugned Award of the Reference Court notes that the
Claimant was aggrieved by the inadequate amount of compensation
awarded for the land and non payment of separate compensation for
the mango trees standing on the land at the relevant time. The
Claimant demanded compensation for the land @ Rs 60/ per square
meter. It was claimed that the acquired land are abutting Mumbai -
sa_mandawgad/Patil SR 2 of 21
FA 1637-09 & Cr Obj
Panvel-Uran High way and all amenities like school, hospital, post
office etc are available in Panvel City and Village Dapoli. The village is
connected with State Transport buses. The mango trees were yielding
income upto Rs 500/ and by adopting capitalised method, the value
was Rs.10,000/ per Alphonso Mango tree which were 374 in number
and Rs 8,000/ per tree for the three Raival trees. The compensation
claimed was Rs 49,14,121.11 with statutory benefits.
5. The claim came to be opposed by the SLAO contending that
the Village Dapoli was dependent on agriculture and there were no
civic amenities and no industrial unit near the village.
6. The Claimant examined himself, Valuer Ms.Manjiri Joshi and Mr.
Prakash Prabhudesai-Officer of Agricultural Department. The
Opponent did not lead any evidence. The documents produced by the
Claimant includes the certified copy of valuation report of trees
prepared by Deputy Director of Horticulture, Raigad-Exhibit 24.
7. In cross examination, the Claimant has admitted that the
electricity and water facility were not readily available to acquired
land, there is no industrial unit in the village, the approach road to the
village is kaccha road, that State Transport bus does not come to their
village and there is no building activity beyond gaothan in 70 years .
8. The Valuer produced the valuation report at Exhibit 28 and map
sa_mandawgad/Patil SR 3 of 21
FA 1637-09 & Cr Obj
at Exhibit 29. In Appendix I of the Valuation Report, various decisions
of Reference Courts of comparative instances were set out. The
Valuer deposed that the proper rate for the land should be Rs 25/ per
square metre. She deposed that the acquired land has N.A.
potentiality. In cross examination she has admitted that there was no
non agricultural development in the year 1970, no industrial units and
civic amenities, acquired land is not adjacent to Panvel Uran road, no
building construction was in progress in the village in the year 1970
and the acquired land was landlocked. She has further admitted that
the valuation report does not mention the area of the plots of the
comparative sale instances and that the comparative plots were
smaller and located within municipal limits.
9. The Officer of Agricultural Department produced the Valuation
report prepared by the Deputy Director of Horticulture, Raigad in
respect of fruit bearing trees at Exhibit 42.
10. The Reference Court examined the evidence on record and
came to a finding that the compensation awarded was inadequate.
The Reference Court considered the comparable decisions of the
Reference Courts and awarded compensation in respect of the land
at Rs.16/- per square metre. In so far as the valuation of trees is
concerned, the Reference Court accepted the report at Exhibit 42
sa_mandawgad/Patil SR 4 of 21
FA 1637-09 & Cr Obj
prepared by the Deputy Director of Horticultural Department and
assessed the compensation of trees at Rs.11,12,190/. The Reference
Court also corrected the error by factoring the 77 trees standing on
land Survey No.19/5, which was missed by SLAO.
11. The Claimant seeks enhancement of compensation awarded by
the Reference Court and the State Government is aggrieved by the
enhancement of compensation by the Reference Court.
12. Mr. Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the Claimant
submits that interim application has been filed by the Claimant under
Order 41 Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for leading
additional evidence to place on record the subsequent judgment
passed by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court in respect of
Village Koli-Kopar and Village Wadghar assessing the land as at Rs.25/-
per square meter and for leading additional evidence of Valuer for
producing additional valuation report, location and distance chart,
map etc.
13. He submits that the acquired land was covered by fruit bearing
trees and separate compensation is required to be awarded for fruit
bearing trees. Drawing support from the decision in State of
Maharashtra vs. Dharma Kana Katekar1, he submits that the subject
land was from the same village and acquired for the same project. He
1 In First Appeal No.414 of 2005 with
Cross-objection dated 3rd May, 2016.
sa_mandawgad/Patil SR 5 of 21
FA 1637-09 & Cr Obj
submits that this Court in the said case considered the yield of each
mango tree at 1,000 fruits every year, which is also required to be
applied in the present case. He has taken this Court in detail through
the evidence of the Valuer and report of the Horticulture
Department.
14. Mr. Kulkarni has tendered a chart calculating the compensation
based on the computation in case of State of Maharashtra vs
Dharma Kana Katekar (supra). He would emphasis that instead of
leaving the Claimant to the remedy of execution, directions be issued
by this Court to the SLAO to compute the compensation and deposit
the same in this Court considering that the acquisition is of the year
1970. He would submit that the decision in the case of State of
Maharashtra vs Dharma Kana Katekar (supra), granting
compensation on the basis of the yield has not been challenged by the
State Government and has thus attained finality.
15. Upon query by this Court, Mr. Kulkarni would fairly concede that
in the instant case the entire acquired land is covered by fruit bearing
trees and therefore compensation will have to be awarded on the
basis of yield and no compensation can be claimed for land separately.
He submits that in view of the said position, the Interim Application
would not survive for consideration.
sa_mandawgad/Patil SR 6 of 21
FA 1637-09 & Cr Obj
16. Per contra, Mr. Patil, learned AGP would submit a comparative
chart computing the compensation on the basis of yield of 150 fruits
every year. He submits that the Claimant has computed the
compensation on erroneous basis that all 377 trees will have good
healthy life for the next 30 years and would have optimum
productivity for the entire period of 30 years with zero expenses. He
submits that the mango trees start giving fruits after 8 to 10 years and
are impacted by uncertain weather conditions, rain fall etc. Mr. Patil
would submit that expenses for maintenance of trees on account of
regular pruning, fertilization, pest etc as well as cost of
transportation is required to be considered. He submits that out of
the net income from the trees, 1/3rd deduction is required to be
made. He submits that as far as the mango trees are concerned, by
taking into consideration the yield of 150 fruits per year, the
compensation from 1986 till 2003 would be Rs.44,88,000/- and
whereas for the Raival Mango trees would be Rs.45,000/- and by
deducting 1/3rd from the said amount, the compensation payable for
the Alphonso trees would be Rs.29,92,000/- and for Raival trees would
be Rs.30,000/-.
17. In rejoinder, Mr. Kulkarni would submit that the negative factors
cannot be considered because the same was not considered by the
Co-ordinate Bench in the case of State of Maharashtra vs Dharma
sa_mandawgad/Patil SR 7 of 21
FA 1637-09 & Cr Obj
Kana Katekar (supra), and there is no challenge to the said judgment.
He would further submit that there is no evidence led by the State
Government to support the contention of 1/3rd deduction. He would
further submit that the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case
of Dharma Kana Katekar (supra), arose out of LAR No. 36 of 2003, in
which the Claimant had examined an expert Shrinivas Godbole, who in
his evidence has given the yield of each Alphonso mango tree at
Rs.7,000/- to Rs.8,000/- per year excluding expenses, which was not
accepted by the Learned Single Judge in entirety. He would further
point out that the Reference Court held that the Claimant must be
getting Rs.2,500/- from each Alphonso mango tree and Rs.1,500/- per
year from Raival mango tree and fixed compensation accordingly,
which was interfered by the Co-ordinate Bench by taking judicial note
of the erstwhile market rate of Mangoes and jamun. He would further
submit that in the case of Ram Kishan vs. State of Haryana2, the
Hon'ble Apex Court considered the relevance of the prior awards and
held that the previous award has to be considered as piece of
evidence. He submits that the decision in the case of Dharma Kana
Katekar (supra), is required to be considered as piece of evidence as
the lands are similarly situated.
18. The facts of the case and the submissions canvassed would give
2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 715
sa_mandawgad/Patil SR 8 of 21
FA 1637-09 & Cr Obj
rise to the following points for determination:
(I) Whether the compensation awarded by the Reference
Court requires interference?
(II) Whether the Claimants are entitled to separate
compensation for land and for fruit bearing trees?
(iii) Whether the capitalisation yield method adopted by the Co-
ordinate Bench in State of Maharashtra v. Dharma Kana
Katekar (supra) can form the basis for assessing the
compensation in the present case?
19. In the present case, by the Award dated 27 th June, 1986, the
SLAO awarded compensation for the land at Rs 33,493.12 in addition
to statutory benefits and did not award any compensation for the
fruit bearing trees. In Reference, the Claimants claimed enhanced
compensation for the land and separate compensation for the fruit
bearing trees.
20. Dealing first with the issue as to whether the Claimant is
entitled to separate compensation for the land and for fruit bearing
trees, though Mr. Kulkarni has fairly conceded that compensation be
assessed on basis of yield, it would be appropriate to place the issue
to rest. In the case of Ambya Kalya Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra 3
one of the issues before the Hon'ble Apex Court was where
compensation was awarded for the land, whether no compensation
3 (2011) 9 SCC 325.
sa_mandawgad/Patil SR 9 of 21
FA 1637-09 & Cr Obj
can be awarded for the trees or Well separately. The Hon'ble Apex
Court noted the decision of State of Harayana v. Gurcharan Singh4
which had held as under:
"3. 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 needs 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; once 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 land includes the benefits which
accrue from the land as defined in Section 3(a) of the Act. After
compensation is determined on the basis of the value of the
land as distinct from the income applying suitable multiplier,
then the trees would be valued only as firewood 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, applied a multiplier of more than 8 years. Under no
circumstances, the multiplier should be more than an 8 years'
multiplier, as it is a settled law of this Court in a catena of
decisions that when the market value is determined on the basis
of the yield from the trees or a plantation, 8 years' multiplier
shall be the appropriate multiplier. For agricultural land 12
years' multiplier shall be a suitable multiplier."
21. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ambya Kalya Mhatre v. State of
Maharashtra (supra) held that if the land value had been determined
with reference to the sale statistics or compensation awarded for a
nearby vacant land then necessarily the trees will have to be valued
separately, but if the value of the land has been determined on the
4 1995 Supp (2) SCC 637.
sa_mandawgad/Patil SR 10 of 21
FA 1637-09 & Cr Obj
basis of sale statistics or compensation awarded for an orchard, that is
land with fruit bearing trees, then there is no question of again adding
the value of the trees. Further, if the market value has been
determined by capitalising the income with reference to yield, then
also the question of making any addition either for the land or for the
trees separately does not arise.
22. In the instant case, Mr. Kulkarni would seek to rely on the
capitalisation of yield method adopted by the Co-ordinate Bench in
Dharma Kana Katekar (supra). Applying the settled principles as the
Claimant seeks determination of compensation on parity with
compensation awarded for land having fruit bearing trees, no
compensation can be awarded for land separately and trees
separately.
23. There is no factual dispute as regards the existence of 374
Alphonso Mango Trees and 3 Raival Mango Trees on the acquired land.
The decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in State of Maharashtra vs
Dharma Kana Katekar (supra) was not challenged by the State
Government and has attained finality. The acquired land in present
case and the subject land in the said decision are from the same
village Dapoli and acquired by the same notification for the same
purpose.
sa_mandawgad/Patil SR 11 of 21
FA 1637-09 & Cr Obj
24. In that case, the Claimant had examined the agricultural officer
of Zilla Parishad, Raigad who deposed that each Alphonso mango tree
gives yield worth Rs 7,000 to Rs 8,000/ per year excluding expenses
and Raival mango tree gives yield worth Rs 2,000 to Rs 3,000/ per year.
The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court did not accept the evidence of
the agricultural officer and took judicial note of the erstwhile market
rate of mangoes and jamun. The Learned Single Judge held that the
yield of Alphonso Mango tree would be 1,000 fruits per year. Based
on the capitalisation of yield method, the Co-ordinate Bench
considered the price of one Alphonso mango at Re.1/- for the first 5
years and at Rs.5/- for the next 5 yeas and thereafter at Rs.10/- for the
next 5 years. Insofar as the Raival mango trees are concerned, the
Court determined the valuation at Rs.700/- per tree per year for the
first 5 years and at Rs.1,500/- per tree per year for the next 5 years
and thereafter at Rs.2,500/- per tree per year for the next 5 years.
25. The relevance of prior Awards was considered by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Ram Kishan vs State of Harayana (supra) and it was
held that the compensation cannot be determined by blindly
following the previous award/judgment and has to be considered only
a piece of evidence. What the Hon'ble Apex Court cautioned was that
the Courts should not be swayed by the misconception of equality and
fair treatment in the absence of similar nature and situation of land
sa_mandawgad/Patil SR 12 of 21
FA 1637-09 & Cr Obj
which would cause more injustice and tantamount to giving equal
treatment in case of unequals.
26. Applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court to
the facts of present case, the order of Co-ordinate Bench arose out of
LAR No. 36 of 2003 which was considered as comparable instance by
the Reference Court. There is no factual dispute raised by the
Opponent-State Government that the acquired lands forming subject
matter of LAR No 36 of 2003 is not comparable instance. The lands of
LAR No 36 of 2003 and present lands are from the same village and it
is settled that wherever direct evidence i.e. the instances from same
village are available then it is most desirable that the Court should
consider those instances. (See The State of Maharashtra vs
Yashwant Kahnu Shirsath5). The factual position of Alphonso and
Raival mango trees standing on the lands in LAR No 36 of 2003 and
the instant subject lands indicates similarity of nature of land and the
decision in Dharma Kana Katekar(supra) can be safely considered as
comparable instance for determining compensation in the present
case.
27. In the case of LAR No. 36 of 2003, the Claimant had led
evidence of expert, which was not accepted by the Co-ordinate Bench
in its entirety. Applying the principle of "guesstimation", the Co-
5 (2007) (109) BOM.L.R. 1511.
sa_mandawgad/Patil SR 13 of 21
FA 1637-09 & Cr Obj
ordinate Bench took judicial note of the erstwhile market rate of the
mangoes and by applying the capitalisation of yield method for period
of 15 years, computed the compensation. In the present case, the
Claimant and Opponent has furnished rival charts of compensation as
under:
Particulars. State's Computation Claimants' Computation
Each mango tree gives 300 fruits Each mango tree gives 2000 fruits
per year. As it frcutify alternate per year. As it frcutify alternate
year consider 150 fruits. year consider 1000 fruits.
1986-1991 Price of one Mango -Rs.1 Price of one Mango -Rs.1
Price of 374 mango trees (1 Price of 374 mango trees (1 year).
year). Computation for 5 years.
Computation for 5 years.
Computation:
Computation: 1000 X 1 = 1000.
150 X 1 = 150. 1000 X 374= 374000/-
150 X 374= 56100/-
56100 X 5 = 18,70,000/-
56100 X 5 = 2,80,500/-
1992-1997. Price of one Mango - Rs.5/- Price of one Mango - Rs.5/-
Price of 374 mango trees (1 Price of 374 mango trees (1 year).
year).
Computation for 5 years.
Computation for 5 years.
Computation:
Computation: 1000 X 5 = 5000
150 X 5 = 750 5000 X 374 = 18,70,000/-
750 X 374 = 2,80,500/-
18,70,000 X 5= 93,50,000/-.
2,80,500 X 5= 14,02,500/-.
1998-2003 Price of one Mango - Rs.10 Price of one Mango - Rs.10
Price of 374 mango trees (1 Price of 374 mango trees (1 year).
year).
Computation for 5 years.
Computation for 5 years.
Computation:
Computation: 1000 X 10 = 10000
sa_mandawgad/Patil SR 14 of 21
FA 1637-09 & Cr Obj
150 X 10 = 1500 10000 X 374 = 37,40,000
1500 X 374 = 561000
37,40,000 X 5 = 1,87,00,000/-
5,61,000 X 5 = 28,05,000/-
TOTAL Rs.44,88,000 Rs.2,99,20,000
28. The submission of rival chart by the State Government
constitutes an acceptance that the decision of State of Maharashtra
v. Dharma Kana Katekar (supra) adopting the capitalisation of yield
method can form basis for computation in the present case. The chart
by the State Government accepts the price fixed for each mango as
fixed in Dharma Kana Katekar (supra). The only discrepancy is the
yield per year as the rival chart considers the yield at 150 fruits per
year. There is no material placed on record by the Opponent State to
establish the basis on which the yield was computed at 150 fruits per
year and no basis for reduction of price of Raival trees. The Co-
ordinate Bench in State of Maharashtra v. Dharma Kana Katekar
(supra) did not accept that each mango tree fructify 4,000 fruits per
year and has taken into consideration 1,000 fruits per year. The Co-
ordinate Bench considered the evidence of the valuer therein and
came to a finding about the yield, which has now attained finality. To
disturb the said finding, there is no material produced by State
Government that the yield considered in Dharma Kana Katekar
(supra) cannot form basis in the present case. The submission of Mr.
sa_mandawgad/Patil SR 15 of 21
FA 1637-09 & Cr Obj
Patil that the yield would be affected by uncertain weather
conditions, rainfall etc was also considered by the Co-ordinate Bench
in Dharma Kana Katekar (supra). It needs to be noted that in case of
fruit bearing trees, the yield per year is usually averaged out due to
increase or decrease in the yield dependent on the various factors
impacting the produce.
29. In my view, there is no basis to compute the yield at 150 fruits
per year and the yield considered by the Co-ordinate Bench can form
the basis in the present case. There is no reason to deny the present
Claimant the same benefit which was granted to the Claimant in
State of Maharashtra v. Dharma Kana Katekar (supra) considering
the similarity of the lands.
30. The Co-ordinate Bench in case of Dharma Kana Katekar (supra)
capitalised the yield for 15 years by considering the life of the mango
trees at average 60 years. Mr. Patil, learned AGP has rightly relied
upon the decision of Shaik Imambi vs Special Deputy Collector (Land
Acquisition) Telegu Ganga Project (supra). In the facts of that case,
the Land Acquisition Officer has considered the the remainder of fruit
bearing life of the lime trees as 14 years and assessed the
compensation accordingly. The High Court while enhancing the
compensation applied the multiplier of 10 to the enhanced amount.
sa_mandawgad/Patil SR 16 of 21
FA 1637-09 & Cr Obj
The Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the multiplier of 10 and held that the
consistent view taken is that the standard multiplier should be 10 and
that in special circumstances based on specific evidence regarding the
nature, standard, condition of the orchard, the Court may apply the
higher multiplier of 12 or 13 or lower multiplier of 8.
31. In Special Land Acquisition, Davangere v. P.Veerabhadarappa6,
the Hon'ble Apex Court held that when capitalization method for
valuation is applied, proper multiplier should be 10. Similarly, in
Special Land Acquisition Officer vs. Virupax Shankar Nadagouda 7,
relying on P. Veerabhadarappa (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court
determined compensation on the basis of 10 years' multiplier. Again,
in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Malik Sartaj Wali Khan 8, the
Hon'ble Apex Court held that computation of compensation for
determination of market value may be carried out on yield basis and
multiplier of 10 should be applied.
32. In State of Harayana v. Gurcharan Singh (supra) the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that under no circumstance, the multiplier
should be more than 8 years multiplier. When the market value is
determined on the basis of the yield from trees or plantation 8 years
multiplier shall be appropriate multiplier. For agricultural land 12
6 (1984) 2 SCC 120.
7 (1996) 6 SCC 124.
8 (2001) 10 SCC 660.
sa_mandawgad/Patil SR 17 of 21
FA 1637-09 & Cr Obj
years multiplier shall be suitable multiplier. In the said decision at
paragraph 4 it has been held as follows :
"4. In this case, the Collector applied more than 8 years'
multiplier and awarded compensation. The High Court also has
not 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 Act. 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."
33. Same view has been taken in Assistant Commissioner-cum-
Land Acquisition Officer V. S.T. Pompanna Setty 9. The Hon'ble Apex
Court in that held that normally in cases where compensation is
awarded on yield basis, multiplier of 10 is considered, proper and
appropriate. The decision of Navanath v. State of Maharashtra10
held in paragraph 40 as under:
"40. Indisputably, valuation of agricultural land on the one
hand and valuation of orchard and forest on the other would
stand on different footings. Whereas in the former case, the
known legal principles, particularly with reference to the
exemplars will have to be applied, in the latter a different
principle, namely, multiplier of eight or ten, as the case may
be, on the basis of the multiplicand, namely, yield from the
trees or plantation would be applicable. (See Kerala SEB v.
Livisha where multiplier of eight was used and Asstt.
9 AIR 2005 SC 749.
10 (2009) 14 SCC 480.
sa_mandawgad/Patil SR 18 of 21
FA 1637-09 & Cr Obj
Commr.-cum-Land Acquisition Officer vs. S.T. Pompanna
Setty where multiplier of ten was used.) In some decisions of
this Court even higher multiplier was used."
34. The above decisions would indicate that the Hon'ble Apex Court
has re-inforced and re-emphasised that normally in cases where
compensation is awarded on yield basis, multiplier of 10 is considered
proper and appropriate. In Dharma Kana Katekar (supra), the Learned
Single Judge applied the multiplier of 15, which is on higher side. The
Learned Single Judge has assessed the compensation and enhanced
the price of each mango every five years for 15 years. In the first five
years, the price of per mango was assessed at Re.1/-, for next five
years at Rs 5, and the last five years at Rs.10/-. Applying the well -
settled principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, as
compensation is awarded on capitalisation of yield method, the
multiplier to be adopted is 10.
35. Judicial note was taken in Dharma Kana Katekar (supra) of the
erstwhile market rates of mangoes while granting enhanced rate
every five years. It is well-known that the price of mangoes is not
static and is usually prone to enhancement alongwith the market
inflation. The Learned Single Judge has enhanced the price five times
every five years. In my view, it would be fair and proper to average out
the price computed by the Co-ordinate Bench and consider the price
sa_mandawgad/Patil SR 19 of 21
FA 1637-09 & Cr Obj
of each mango consistent at Rs 5/. There are 374 Alphonso Mango
trees giving 1000 fruits per tree per year aggregating to 3,74,000
fruits per year. Applying the multiplier of 10, the compensation per
year would be 3,74,000 x 5 x10 i.e. Rs.1,87,00,000/-.
36. In so far as Raival mango trees are concerned, the price per tree
was fixed at Rs.700/- per year for the first 5 years at Rs.1,500/- per
year for the next 5 years and at Rs.2,500/- per year for the next 5
years in Dharma Kana Katekar(supra). It is not demonstrated from
the decision that the price of the Raival Mango Trees was fixed on the
basis of yield. The calculation as computed in the said decision in
respect of price of Raival Mango tree can be accepted in the present
case and the compensation to be awarded for the three Raival mango
trees is Rs.70,500/-.
37. There is substance in the contention of Mr. Patil that the
decision in State of Maharashtra v. Dharma Kana Katekar (supra) did
not consider the deductions to be made towards maintenance of
trees, expenses towards transportation etc. It cannot be disputed
that certain expenses are required to be incurred regularly for
maintenance of trees on account of pruning, spraying of fertilizers,
pest and disease management for achieving better quality yield and
for transportation etc., while considering the income from these
sa_mandawgad/Patil SR 20 of 21
FA 1637-09 & Cr Obj
trees. Though Mr. Patil would submit that 1/3 rd deductions are
required to be made, the said ratio is usually applied towards the
development cost of land which cannot be applied for the purpose of
maintenance of trees. In my view, the deduction of 10% would fairly
cover the cost of maintenance of the trees.
38. Accordingly, the Special Land Acquisition Officer is directed to
compute the compensation and statutory benefits. Although it was
insisted by Mr. Kulkarni that the execution of the order be directed in
this Court itself, this Court can lay down timelines to ensure execution
of this judgment in time bound manner. Considering that the
acquisition is of the year 1986, the Special Land Acquisition Officer is
directed to calculate the compensation as directed by this order
within a period of 12 weeks from uploading of this order on the
official website. The Claimant to be paid the amount computed within
a period of three months thereafter.
39. The First Appeal stands dismissed and the Cross Objection is
allowed in above terms. The Interim Application does not survive for
consideration and stands disposed of.
[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
sa_mandawgad/Patil SR 21 of 21
Signed by: Sanjay A. Mandawgad
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 09/09/2025 19:07:30
