JUDGMENT V. P. Bhatnagar, J.—The only question which requires determination in this Regular First Appeal preferred against the judgment, dated July 31, 1974 of the learned District Judge, Shimla pertains to the correct valuation of the apple trees in the land belonging to Shri Amba Dutt, respondent. The land was acquired by the State of Himachal Pradesh for the purpose of constructing Gumma-Gashla road. 2. The land acquired comprises in khasra Nos. 306/305/1. in the court of the learned District Judge, Shimla, it was urged on behalf of the State of Himachal Pradesh that the area of acquired land was 15 Biswas and not one bigha. This plea was negatived by the learned District Judge and has not been re-agitated in the present appeal inasmuch as in para 4 of the memorandum of appeal, the area of the acquired land has been indicated as one bigha. Also, no arguments have been addressed to challenge this finding of the learned Court below. 3. The Land Acquisition Collector, in his award given on December 12, 1972, assessed the market value of the acquired land measuring one bigha as Rs. 2,844. This amount was maintained by the learned District Judge and, once again, has not been contested before this Court. 4. As regards the valuation of apple trees, the Land Acquisition Collector allowed a sum of Rs. 13,435 as the price thereof. However, the learned District Judge, after concluding that there existed 58 apple trees aged 9 years and belonging to Class-I, allowed enhanced compensation to the tune of Rs. 46,030. He then proceeded to -allow a further amount of Rs. 6,904 as compulsory acquisition charges at the rate 15% on the above enhanced amount. It was further held by him that Shri Amba Dutt, respondent would be entitled to interest at the rate of 4% per annum from the date of award to the date of realisation on the enhanced compensation. The State of Himachal Pradesh has prayed that the impugned judgment of the learned District Judge pertaining to the value of the apple trees be set aside and the award of the Land Acquisition Collector be restorted. 5. During the course of hearing arguments on December 26, 1985, it was felt necessary to examine Dr. K. C. Azad, Director of Horticulture in order to pronounce judgment in this appeal. His statement was ultimately recorded on March 13, 1986 as CW-1. 6. 5. During the course of hearing arguments on December 26, 1985, it was felt necessary to examine Dr. K. C. Azad, Director of Horticulture in order to pronounce judgment in this appeal. His statement was ultimately recorded on March 13, 1986 as CW-1. 6. It is not disputed that the evaluation of fruit trees found to be standing on any piece of land acquired by the Mate of Himachal Pradesh is to be done on the basis of the Basic principles and Method enunciated by Dr. Harbans Singh and contained in book-let Ex. C-L This has been confirmed by Dr. K. C, Azad. 7. As stated above, the learned District Judge, Shimla evaluated the price of 58 apple trees taking their ages to be 9 years. The main question to be determined is if such a plantation can be economically viable at all. 8. Shri Amba Dutt, PW 1, has stated on oath that there were 5S apple trees on the acquired land. He has examined four witnesses to support his case on the above point and further to prove that the said trees were being managed so well that the same fell in Class-I described in book-let Ex. C-l. The State of Himachal Pradesh on the other hand, contested the above position by examining Shri B. R. Sharma, Horticulture Inspector, RW 3, who had visited the spot in order to evaluate the price of the apple trees standing on the acquired land. He found 12 apple trees 7 years old of Class-ll and 4 apple trees of the same age of Class—III besides 24 apple trees of 4 years of age. On the basis of the report submitted by him, Shri N. C. Khosla, KW I, District Horticulture Officer assessed the value keeping in view the principles stated in book-let Ex. C-L Whereas the Land Acquisition Collector acted upon this assessment and allowed a sum of Rs. 13,433 to Shri Amba Dutt, respondent, the learned District Judge, as a result of reference made under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, allowed an enhanced amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 46,030 by evaluating the price of 58 apple trees and taking their ages to be 9 years. 9. Under the heading "Bearing Age at page 2 of the book-let Ex. C-l, it has been observed that : "The trees should also be at the proper distance. 46,030 by evaluating the price of 58 apple trees and taking their ages to be 9 years. 9. Under the heading "Bearing Age at page 2 of the book-let Ex. C-l, it has been observed that : "The trees should also be at the proper distance. Too close plantations affect the yield adversely in due course of time, the branches clash with each other, sun is obstructed and orchard operations become difficult. The insects, pests, and diseases are also prevalent in such dense plantations." Furthermore, remark No. 5 at page 4 of the book-let Ex. C-l reads : "If the distance between the trees in the orchard is less than the minimum recommended for the kind, the valuation will be reduced corresponding to the reduction in distance." It is, therefore, clear that thick plantation beyond a certain limit would render such an orchard a total failure from the commercial point of view. In such an eventuality, proper growth, production and productivity would become a casualty and, in no case, the owner thereof would reap any benefit from this type of an orchard. Actually, it may then be a losing proposition. No profit is likely to accrue from such an orchard and it is highly doubtful if such apple trees would fetch any market value whatsoever within the ambit of section .3 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act. 10. The testimony of Dr. K. C. Azad, CW 1, fully supports the above conclusions. He has opined as an expert witness that about 108 trees per acre (about 22 trees in a bigha) should be plainted in flat land and further that in a sloppy land, depending upon the severity of the slope, the number of trees which can be planted should be 168 per acre (about 3? per bigha). In case of Government managed orchards in Himachal Pradesh, with a gradient of 50 to f0%, the number of plaints over there are 32 per bigha. So far as the acquired land is concerned, Shri B, R. Sharma, RW 3, has deposed that the said land had 45% slope at some places and 1j to 20% slope at other places. It means that the number of apple trees which could have been planted one bigha should have been between 22 to 32. 11. Shri Amba Dutt, has, however, stated that 58 apple trees existed in the acquired land measuring one bigha. Dr. It means that the number of apple trees which could have been planted one bigha should have been between 22 to 32. 11. Shri Amba Dutt, has, however, stated that 58 apple trees existed in the acquired land measuring one bigha. Dr. K. C. Azad, CW 1, has opined in categorical terms that such plantation cannot be economically viable. In fact, he has gone a step further and stated that it is not possible that there can be 58 trees aged 9 years growing properly on one bigha of land. He could not recall any evaluation case done by his department in such a situation. The reason is obvious. No apple orchardist is going to plant as many as 58 trees in one bigha of land and in case he does so, such an orchard would be more akin to an apple nursery rather than a profit yielding orchard. If the number of trees exceed marginally, some deduction in their price can be made by invoking remark No. 5 at page 4 of the book-let, Ex. C-l, as reproduced above. But, the basic principles contained therein would be totally inapplicable where the plantation is so dense that the possibility of getting good yield therefrom stands altogether ruled out. 12. In view of the above reasons, I hold that the learned District Judge. Shimla, fell intolent error firstly in holding that 58 trees of 9 years age existed in the acquired land and, secondly, in applying the basic principles contained in the formula enunciated by Dr. Harbans Singh in book-let Ex. C-l for evaluating their price. It may not be out of place to mention here that the learned District Judge awarded a sum of Rs 61,480 as the value of the trees against the claim of Rs. 52,000 preferred by the respondent himself. The Land Acquisition Collector had allowed a sum of Rs. 13,435 as the price of the apple trees. 13. In view of the above discussion, the impugned judgment is set aside and that of the Land Acquisition Collector restored. The respondent is, however, entitled to recover compulsory acquisition charges at the rate of 30% instead of 15% allowed by the Land Acquisition Collector on the full market value, amounting to Rs. 16,279. The respondent has already been paid compulsory acquisition charges amounting to Rs. 2,441/85-P which will be adjusted. The respondent is, however, entitled to recover compulsory acquisition charges at the rate of 30% instead of 15% allowed by the Land Acquisition Collector on the full market value, amounting to Rs. 16,279. The respondent has already been paid compulsory acquisition charges amounting to Rs. 2,441/85-P which will be adjusted. Besides, the respondent -will be entitled to recover interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of taking possession of the land till the date of payment of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector to him or its deposit in the court. In case the respondent has been paid any amount in excess from that indicated above, as a result of the impugned judgment, the State of Himachal Pradesh will be entitled to recover the same. The appeal is accepted accordingly. Order accordingly.