The principle of reinstatement is not applicable in cases where the income derived or probably to be derived from the land would constitute a fair basis for assessing the value to the owner.

SARMA, J.:- This is an appeal against the award dated 30th June, 1969 of the learned District Judge, U. A. D. Jorhat in Land Acquisition case No. 157 of 1961 arising out of an application under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) filed in L. A. case No.88 of 1959-60 before the Collector at Jorhat. The facts may be stated, in brief, as below.

2. An area of 22 B. 4-K. O Lecha of land pertaining to Socklating Grant (F. C. Grant No. 1) in Khangia Mouza of Jorhat Sub-division belonging to the appellant - Socklating Tea Co. (P) Ltd. was acquired by the Collector of the District Sibsagar for construction of a crude oil pipe line from Naharkatia to Gauhati, vide preliminary Notification No. RLA. 138/60/2 dated 11-4-1960 and declaration No. RLA. 138/60/14 dated 26-8-1960 under Ss. 4 and 6 of the Act, respectively. The Collector by his award under S.11 of the Act awarded a sum of Rs. 7,980/- as compensation for the land without the trees etc. There were tea bushes on this land the number of which was disputed. According to the Collector the number of bushes was only 3,117, whereas, according to the appellant there were 7164 bushes, which were destroyed. The Collector awarded a sum of Rs. 15,586.15 P. for the tea bushes on the basis of 3117 bushes at the rate of Rs. 5/- per bush as against the claim of the appellant at the rate of 12.50 per bush. An additional compensation at the rate of 15% was allowed by the Collector on the above amount, as required under S. 23 (2) of the Act.

3. Besides the compensation for the land and the tea bushes the appellant claimed an additional sum of Rs. 24,684/- by way of re-instatement on the basis of the price of a similar area of other land, estimated cost of re-plantation on such land and the estimated cost of up-keep of the newly planted area for seven years till it could yield income. The Collector rejected this claim. Being aggrieved by the award of the Collector the appellant filed an application under S. 18 of the Act and it was referred to the Judge by the Collector for disposal.

4. Before the learned District Judge, who heard the application under S. 18 of the Act, the appellant did not claim any enhanced compensation for the land itself, but claimed enhanced compensation in respect of tea bushes and the additional compensation by way of reinstatement, as mentioned above.

5. On a consideration of the evidence adduced before him by the parties, the learned District Judge accepted the figure of tea bushes over the acquired land to be 7164 as claimed by the appellant. He, however, thought that the compensation claimed by the appellant at the rate of 12.50 P. per bush was exorbitant. It appears the learned District Judge laboured under a mistaken impression that the Collector awarded compensation for the tea bushes at the rate of 2.50 P. per bush. With this impression he thought that compensation at the rate of Rs. 3.50 P. per bush would be adequate. Accordingly he enhanced the compensation for the tea bushes by Rs. 7,164/- i.e. at the rate of Re. 1/- per bush. The claim for additional compensation by way of reinstatement, as mentioned earlier, was however rejected. The learned District Judge also ordered that the appellant would be entitled to get interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced amount in case this amount was not paid within six months from the date of the award. No additional compensation under S. 23 (2) was however allowed on the enhanced compensation.

6. Mr. P.K. Goswami, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted before us that the compensation awarded by the learned District Judge in respect of the tea bushes is wholly inadequate and unjustified, which is apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as the Collector awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 5/- per bush whereas the District Judge awarded the same at Rs. 3.50 per bush. He further submitted that the learned Judge was wrong in rejecting the claim of the appellant