The land bearing Sy.No.68 of Kamalapur village of

Bhalki Taluk measuring 4 acres 19 guntas was notified

under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, on

21.09.1978 and thereafter an award came to be passed on

16.12.2010, by which a sum of `2,400/- per acre was

offered by the Land Acquisition Officer.

The Reference Court on enquiry came to the

conclusion that the claimant was entitled to a sum of

`40,000/- per acre and in appeal the District Judge

enhanced the compensation of `88,000/-.

3.

Being dissatisfied the claimant is in appeal.

4.

Learned counsel for the claimant contended that the

claimant had raised both banana as well as chilly crops

and as per Ex.P5, a certificate issued by the Horticulture

Officer, a total of 1200 banana plants could be raised in an

- 3 -

acre and yet the District Judge has considered the number

of plants that had been raised at 1100 on the basis of a

further assessment made in Ex.P.5.

5.

Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that

no assessment is made for the chilly crops that the

claimant had raised and the multiplier of 10 applied would

be inadequate.

6.

As far as the second contention that the chilly crops

were also raised along with bananas plants, the same is

not evidenced in the RTC and the RTC for the relevant

period only indicates that banana plants had been raised.

In light of this evidence, the argument of the learned

counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted so far as

raising of chilly crops is concerned.

7.

However, in respect of the quantity of banana plants

that can be raised in an acre, the District Court has taken

number as 1100 on the basis of Ex.P.5, but the District

Judge has failed to notice that the first column No.5 of

- 4 -

Ex.P.5 the Assistant Director of Horticulture has himself

stated that 1200 plants could be raised in an acre.

8.

In my view since the RTC indicates that in the entire

extent of land, banana plants were raised, it would be

appropriate to accept that 1200 plants had been raised in

each acre as against 1100 plants considered by the District

Court.

9.

The District Court has calculated the prices of each

banana plant at `16/- and arrived at a sum of `17,600/-.

In my view the assessment of the value of each banana

plant at `16/- cannot be found fault with. However, since

the quantity of banana plants as now been determined at

1200, the claimant would be entitled to contend that his

income per acre would be 1200x16=19,200/- as rightly

held by the Court, 50% of this is to be deducted towards

cost of cultivation and the net income would be therefore

be `9,600/-.

- 5 -

10.

The argument of the learned counsel for the

appellant that the multiplier of 15 would have to be

adopted cannot be accepted since the decisions of the

Hon’ble Apex Court that a multiplier by 15 should be

applied to fruit bearing trees cannot really be applied to a

banana plant.

11.

In that view of the matter, the determination of

multiplier of 10 cannot be found fault with. Consequently,

the claimant would be entitled to a sum of `96,000/-

(9,600x10) as compensation per acre for the land bearing

Sy.No.68 measuring 4 acres 19 guntas.

12.

The appeal is accordingly allowed to that extent with

costs.

13.

As ordered on 15.03.2018, the claimant would not be

entitled for interest on the period of 867 days which the

delay in filing the appeal.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SN

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17