The main legal point established in the judgment is that the valuation of land and fruit-bearing trees in an orchard for compensation purposes should not be done separately, as the market value is determined based on the yield, and a suitable multiplier is applied to determine the compensation.

Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.

1. The origirial applicant Kamla Pd. Singh had filed this fist appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the judgment and decree dated 23.12.1978 passed by Sri Arun Chandra Das, learned 1st Subordinate Judge-cum-Land Acquisition Judge, Muzaffarpur in Land Acquisition Case No. 136 of 1966. During the pendency of the appeal Kamla Pd. Singh the sole applicant died and in his place the present appellants have been substituted.

2. It may be mentioned here that lands of one Jagarnath Prasad Singh and the lands of the deceased Kamla Pd. Singh was acquired by the State of Bihar for construction of Manikpur Branch Canal of Gandak Project in the year 1965-66 in Land Acquisition Case No. 24 P-Muzaffarpur of 1965-66. Two awards were prepared separately in the name of Jagannath Singh and Kamla Pd. Singh being award No. 4 and award No. 2. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded total sum of Rs. 19,278.31 paise for the land of Kamla Pd. Singh the original applicant. It may be mentioned that total area of 2.69 acres land of Kamla Pd. Singh was acquired. Likewise Jagarnath Singh was also awarded total amount of Rs. 7,057.27 paise for the orchard measuring 97 decimal. Being aggrieved by the award both of them filed applications before the Land Acquisition Officer and prayed for referring the matter under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition Officer referred the case of both of them to the Land Acquisition Judge. Reference of Jagarnath Singh was numbered as Land Acquisition Case No. 135 of 1966 whereas the reference of Kamla Pd. Singh was numbered as Land Acquisition Case No. 136 of 1966. Both the land acquisition cases were disposed of by the impugned common judgment and award. Against the said impugned judgment and award Jagarnath filed First Appeal No. 339 of 1979 before this Court. The said first appeal has been dismissed for default on 23.6.2003.The deceased Kamla Pd. Singh has filed this First Appeal No. 338 of 1979.

3. The Land Acquisition Judge examining the materials available on record awarded a sum of Rs. 32,775/- besides 6% interest to the appellants. Therefore, the Land Acquisition Judge enhanced the compensation from Rs. 19,278.31 paise to Rs. 32,775/- i.e. excess of amount of Rs. 13,496.69 paise was awarded.

4. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the orchard of the appellants was acquired by the State of Bihar and in the land there were about 101 Mango trees and other trees such as Lichi, Sisam, Mahua etc. and the annual income was Rs. 10000/- from yielding of the fruits i.e. Mango and Rs. 2000/- from Lichi. The learned Counsel further submitted that Ext. 1-1/A, the sale deeds, were filed by the appellants to show the value of the land in question but the learned court below did not consider the said sale deeds saying that by the sale deeds the lands were transferred and in the present case value of orchard is to be calculated. According to the learned Counsel the Land Acquisition Judge should have calculated the value of land separately and should have also calculated the value of trees separately but instead of doing so only calculated the value of the income per year and multiplied it by 15 instead of 20 which is wrong. On these grounds learned Counsel submitted that the impugned judgment and award are liable to be set aside and the compensation be enhanced.

5. On the other hand the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that admittedly the lands which were sold through Ext. 1 - 1/A situated at far distance from the land acquired and the lands are not in close vicinity and therefore, the learned court below has rightly not relied upon and moreover, orchard of the appellants has been acquired as such the trees standing on the land and land cannot be valued separately and the learned court below has rightly not done so.

6. In view of the above contentions of the parties, the points arises for consideration are

(1) Whether th