JUDGMENT

R.V. Raveendran, J.

1. Application for impleadment is dismissed as withdrawn.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 ` 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 ` 8,35,957/-. Taking note of the income from the other trees in the orchard, he awarded in all `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, by impugned judgment dated 9.3.2007, allowed the appeal in part. It assessed the annual income as ` 100/- per lime tree or ` 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 ` 80/- per tree. Therefore, in regard to the increase of ` 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 ` 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 ` 200/- per annum, instead of ` 100/- per annum, having regard to the expert opinion and evidence let in by the parties.

Re. Question (a)

6. The Land Acquisition Officer had adopted a multiplier of 14 in regard to the annual income of `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 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 t