STATE OF GUJARAT And 2 Other(S) vs DECEASED MOHANLAL VALLABHAI THRO HIS LEGAL HEIRS And 1 Other(S)

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 31.07.2007 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Veraval in Land Reference Case No. 370 of 1990, the State has preferred this appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act read with section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

The facts reveal that the lands belonging to the respondents situated at village Lodhava, Taluka Veraval, District Gir­Somnath came to be acquired for the public purpose of Vadodara (Zala) Tida Regulator Scheme. As per the record, the notification under section 4 of the Act was published in the government gazette on 03.07.1981. Declaration under section 6 was published on 21.10.1982 and the land acquisition proceedings culminated into an award under section 11(1) of the Act, which was made and declared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 24.04.1986. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 3,68,655.80 ps. as compensation for the trees, i.e., coconut trees which were acquired by the land acquisition officer. The respondents­original land owners being dissatisfied with the same, preferred an application under section 18 of the Act before the Land Acquisition officer on 24.04.1986, which came to be referred to the Reference Court originally at Junagadh, which was numbered as Land Reference Case No. 322 of 1989 and on it being transferred to Reference Court at Veraval, the same was renumbered as Land Reference Case No. 370 of 1990.

The Reference Court was pleased to partly allow the application and determined the annual yield of one coconut tree at Rs.5,100/­. Considering life/multiplier of 15 years and believing the evidence led by the respondents­land owners that there were 425 coconut trees, awarded compensation of Rs. 21,67,500/­ (Total compensation of Rs. 21,67,500/­ ­ 24,500/­ = Rs.21,43,000/­) as total compensation along with statutory benefits and hence, the State of Gujarat and the authorities being aggrieved by the same have preferred this appeal.

Heard Mr. Rakesh Patel, learned AGP for the appellants and Mr. Vimal M. Patel, learned advocate for the respondents.

It was contended by Mr. Patel, learned AGP that the land owners have not produced any evidence as regards the number of trees and therefore, the Reference Court has committed error in straightway considering that there was 425 coconut trees over the land which is acquired by the State. It was further contended by Mr. Patel, learned AGP that the Reference Court has not properly considered the cross­examination of one of the land owner at exhibit 16. Mr. Patel further contended that one of the land owner has admitted in his cross­examination that no books of accounts are produced and therefore, in absence of any evidence produced, compensation granted presuming number of trees cannot be granted. It was also contended by Mr. Patel, learned AGP that the Reference Court has wrongly applied multiplier of 15 even though the land owner in the deposition has contended that life of coconut tree is for 12 to 14 years. It was therefore contended by Mr.Patel, learned AGP that the Reference Court has committed an error in determining the market price of the coconut tree and has wrongly awarded Rs. Rs.21,43,000/­ as additional compensation. Mr. Patel, learned AGP contended that the amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer as per the award dated 24.04.1986 is true and correct market value and the same would be reasonable compensation. On the aforesaid grounds, it was contended by Mr. Patel that the appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment and award deserves to be quashed.

Per contra, Mr. Vimal Patel, learned advocate appearing for the respondents land owners has contended that the very ground raised by the learned AGP is dehors the evidence on record. Mr. Patel referring to the copy of the award at exhibit 45 urged that the Land Acquisition Officer himself has considered that there were 425 coconut trees and such figure was mentioned by the Special Land Acquisition officer in his award on the basis of survey conducted as stated in the award itself. Mr. Vimal Patel, learned advocate appearing for the land owners contended that the agriculturists generally do not maintain any books of account and therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn against the land owners. Mr. Vimal Patel contended that the Reference Court has not passed this award on any presumption or assumption with regard to number of trees, however, the conclusion arrived at by the Reference Court is based on the details of the award itself. Mr. Patel relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Koyappathodi M. Ayisha Umma vs State Of Kerala reported in (1991) 4 SCC 8 and contended that the multiplier of 15, which is applied by the Reference Court, is appropriate. Mr. Vimal Patel, contended that as such, the botanical life of the coconut tree is more than 50 years. Mr. Patel also invited attention of this Court to the previous award passed by the Reference Court in LRC No. 59/99, exhibit 64 and contended that in similarly situated lands, the market value of the coconut tree is fixed by applying multiplier of 15 years. On the aforesaid grounds, Mr. Patel contended that the appeal being meritless, deserves to be dismissed. Mr.Patel, learned advocate appearing for the land owners contended that the Reference Court has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and has fixed the price, which is just and proper and reasonable compensation, which does not require any alteration or modification by this Court in the appeal and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

No other or further submissions have been made by the learned advocates appearing for the parties.

Having perused the original record and proceedings and considering the copy of the award, which is produced at exhibit 45, it clearly bornes out that the land acquisition officer has relied upon the report of calculation of trees, more particularly, the coconut trees prepared by the surveyor as well as the officer of the acquiring body wherein the number of trees is mentioned as 425 (225+200) more particularly in land bearing Survey No. 485 part, which belongs to the land owners. Even considering the deposition of the witness of the appellant at exhibit 44, he has deposed before the Reference Court that there are 425 coconut trees. Thus, the Reference Court has considered the market value of 425 coconut trees on the basis of such piece of evidence. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned AGP that there was no evidence on record as regards number of trees deserves to be negatived.

It is true that the land owners have not produced any books of account. However, in absence of account books, the evidence to the effect that there were 425 coconut trees cannot be discarded. As far as the method of valuation which is adopted by the learned Reference Court is concerned, the valution of Rs. 2/­ per coconut even considering the date of notification under section 4 is proper and it cannot be termed as excessive in any manner. The Reference Court has also while considering the annual net income from the coconut tree, by applying multiplier of 15 years, is also proper. It is found from the observations made by the Reference Court that the Reference Court has also taken into consideration the cost aspect and thereafter it has determined the valuation of one coconut tree at Rs.5,100/­. As held by the Apex Court in the case of Koyappathodi M. Ayisha Umma (supra), such annual net income of Rs. 5,100/­ per tree by applying multiplier of 15 is appropriate capitalisation and the life of the coconut tree which is considered to be 15 years is appropriate consideration of the type of tree while capitalisation is made. The Reference Court has also referred to and relied upon the previous award at Exhibit 64 wherein for the land with coconut trees from the same area has been considered in the same manner and method as adopted by the Reference Court in the case on hand. We therefore hold that the Reference Court has rightly considered the number of trees and has correctly applied the multiplier of 15 while capitalising the value of the coconut trees and in view of the aforesaid, it cannot be said that the Reference Court has come to such a conclusion without there being any evidence on record.

In view of the aforesaid, the contention raised by the learned AGP deserves no merit and the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award is confirmed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Record and proceedings be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.