ORDER A.N. Varma, J. - This petition has come upon remand by the Supreme Court which set aside an earlier order passed by this Court dated 19-9-1979 whereby the petition was dismissed on the ground that the same had been filed beyond 90 days of the passing of the impugned order. Remanding the case the Supreme Court has observed that there is no fixed period of limitation prescribed for petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. What is to be seen is whether the petitioner is guilty of laches. In the present case there were no laches. 2. The question which arises for consideration is whether the authorities under U. P. Imposition of Ceiling Land Holdings Act, 1960 have correctly determined the amount of compensation for the fruit bearing trees standing over the land belonging to the petitioner declared surplus under the Act and vested in the State. The prescribed authority determined the compensation payable to the petitioner for the trees which consisted of apple, apricot, peaches and plum trees at Rs. 8,17,000.80. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed an appeal which has been partly allowed by the learned 1st Addl. District Judge, Nainital. The appellate Court determined the compensation at Rs. 8,57,400/-. 3. The petitioners contend that neither of the two authorities has correctly appreciated the true legal position as to the principle to be adopted in determining the compensation to the peculiar facts of the present case. 4. For appreciating the contention, it will be necessary to set out the basic facts which are not in dispute. The property in dispute is in the shape of an orchard called Brindaban Orchard situate in Ramgarh, District Nainital The total area of this Orchard is 457 acres out of which 367 acres was declared surplus and has vested in the State. There are 25510 fruit bearing trees standing over this land. Possession of the part of the Orchard declared surplus was taken by the State on 5-11-1976. The petitioner had purchased this Orchard in two lots - the first on 25-9-1965 for Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rs. six lacs) while the second was acquired by the petitioner on 16-6-1966 for a sum of Rs, 9,00,000/- (Rs. 9 lacs). The authorities have found that the accounts for the turnover or profits for the period prior to 1968 are not available. The petitioner had purchased this Orchard in two lots - the first on 25-9-1965 for Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rs. six lacs) while the second was acquired by the petitioner on 16-6-1966 for a sum of Rs, 9,00,000/- (Rs. 9 lacs). The authorities have found that the accounts for the turnover or profits for the period prior to 1968 are not available. However, the yearly profits accrued to the petitioners during the year 1968 to 1976 are available and the same have been found to work out to an aggregate of Rs. 13,18,382.75. This figure is based on the actual gross income earned by the petitioner during the years 1968 to 1976. In order, however, to ascertain the profits accrued to the petitioners during this period the Courts below have deducted 15% out of b the gross turnover. 5. Thus far there was no difficulty. The real problem arose in working out the annual fair average value of fruit crops according to the formula prescribed under the Act. The entire issue hinges on the explanation added to the Schedule appended to the Act according to which the annual value of the fruits had to be worked cut by taking the arithmetic mean of 20 years profits accruing from such trees. It is in the application of this Explanation that the Courts below felt driven to adopt varying method of calculation. 6. For resolving the controversy, It will be convenient to have a look at the relevant statutory provisions with regard to the determination of compensation in respect of fruit bearing trees. 7. Section 17(1) provides that subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) every tenure holder whose surplus land has vested in the State shall be entitled to receive and be paid an amount as laid down in the Schedule and as determined in the manner provided hereinafter. The relevant part of the Schedule is clause (c) of Part IV to the Schedule which read as follows: - "Trees - (1) Fruit bearing trees Eight times the annual fair average value of fruit crops. (2) For young fruit trees which have not yet borne fruits Cost of the plant and expenditure on labour and planting (3) Trees whose-value lies mainly in the timber thereof. (2) For young fruit trees which have not yet borne fruits Cost of the plant and expenditure on labour and planting (3) Trees whose-value lies mainly in the timber thereof. (Eight times the annual fair average value of such trees) "(Explanation - For the purposes of item (c) the expression average value, in relation to a trees means the arithmetic mean of twenty years' profits accruing from such trees)". 8. The explanation was inserted by U.P. Act No. 20 of 1976 with retrospective effect The amending Act says the Explanation will be deemed always to have been Inserted. 9. Now it is not disputed that the trees acquired from the petitioner were all fruit' bearing trees covered by Sub-clause of clause (c) quoted above. In attempting to apply the Explanation, both the Courts below evolved different methods for calculating the arithmetic mean of 20 years profit accruing because of the fact that accounts of gross earnings were available only for nine years, namely, 1968 to 1976. The prescribed Authority came to the conclusion on the basis of available figures in respect of the years 1968 to 1976 that if in one year the fruit crop was rich the next year it was poor. Thereafter, the Prescribed Authority at random picked out the profits accrued in the 1 year 1970, namely, Rs. 1,40,022.90 and took that figure as representing the assumed profits during alternative years between 1957 to 1967 and the figure of Rs. 1,06,319.45, the profit earned during the year 1969 as representing the assumed profits for the alternating lean years during the period 1957 to 1967. Having picked up these figures as the assumed profits for alternating years between 1957-67, the Prescribed Authority worked out the mean of those two figures and multiplied it by 11 for ascertaining the profits for the years 1957-1967. The Prescribed Authority did not conceal in his order that this would be in the best interest of the State. He conveniently ignored the much higher profits earned by the petitioners in other years during the 1968-76. the appellate Court has very rightly deprecated this approach as entirely improper and non-judicial, while performing statutory duties such as determination of compensation the Prescribed Authority does not act as the representative of the Ceiling Authorities but as an arbitrator and adjudicator. He must hence act fairly, impartially and justly and not as a Revenue Collector. 10. the appellate Court has very rightly deprecated this approach as entirely improper and non-judicial, while performing statutory duties such as determination of compensation the Prescribed Authority does not act as the representative of the Ceiling Authorities but as an arbitrator and adjudicator. He must hence act fairly, impartially and justly and not as a Revenue Collector. 10. The appellate Court adopted a slightly more equitable approach. It took into the account the maximum income earned by the petitioner which was Rs. 2,15,797.30 for the year 1968 at one end and the profit of Rs. 61,620.87 which was the income for the year 1971 at the other as representing the assumed profits respectively for alternating years of good and lean crops during the years 1957-67, and thereafter, taking the mean of these two figures calculated the profits for the year 1957 to 1967 on a purely hypothetical basis. 11. While the method adopted by the appellate Court was more equitable than that applied by the Prescribed Authority, the appellate Court too fell Into the same kind of error as the Prescribed Authority. The Schedule prescribed for calculating the compensation for trees mentions 8 times annual fair average value for fruit crop as the yardstick for calculating the compensation. The basic thing to be ascertained would, therefore, be the annual fair average value. Explanation to clause (c) of Part IV, however, restricts the scope of the term annual fair average value to mean the arithmetic mean of 20 years profits accruing from such trees. The average value has, therefore, to be worked out not on the ordinary notions of the potential or market value of the fruit crop, but on the basis of the arithmetic mean of 20 years profits actually earned or becoming due from out of the fruits of such trees. 12. Now there would be no problem in applying the Explanation to cases where 20 years profits are available. Difficulty would, however, arise in those cases where 20 years profits are not available. In such cases literal compliance with the Explanation would not be possible, and, therefore, the need for invoking the doctrine of substantial compliance. In the absence of 20 years profits earned over a substantial period may be taken as the basis for ascertaining the average value. This period should, however, bear a reasonable relation to the prescribed period of 20 years. In the absence of 20 years profits earned over a substantial period may be taken as the basis for ascertaining the average value. This period should, however, bear a reasonable relation to the prescribed period of 20 years. Taking the mean of just two years even if they happen to be years returning maximum and minimum profits would not be due compliance with the provisions. Abnormally low profits or excessively huge profits arising from fortuitous circumstance, cannot furnish a safe guide. 13. With this legislative background, revert to the facts of the present case. As already noticed, the profits for the years 1968 to 1976 are available. The question is only with regard to the profits accruing from the fruit crops during the years 1957 to 1967. In the absence of any other reliable evidence, the arithmetic mean of nine years profits for the years 1968 to 1976 would, in my opinion, provide a satisfactory basis for ascertaining the average or mean of the profits for the preceding 11 years in question, namely, 1957 to 1967. In the present case, however, I find that apart from the accounts filed by the petitioners for the years 1968 to 1976, there was on the record other evidence also consisting of oral statements and documentary evidence which has been adverted to by the trial Court but not considered by the appellate Court. In addition, learned counsel for the petitioners has invited my attention to a Government Order dated 28 (not legible) 1976 (vide annexure-3 to the petition) which lays down the method for calculating the value of fruit bearing trees for the purposes of determining the compensation. It is not clear whether this Government Order has been issued in the context of U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. The appellate Court may, therefore, consider the entire evidence existing on the record including this Government Order and make an attempt to find out if it is reasonably possible to ascertain the profits accruing from such or similar orchard during the years 1957 to 1967 in the region in question. If it is, then the appellate Court may take that figure as representing the profits accruing during the years 1957 to 1968 and add to that the profits for the years 1968 to 1976 for working out 20 years profits as contemplated by the Explanation. 14. If it is, then the appellate Court may take that figure as representing the profits accruing during the years 1957 to 1968 and add to that the profits for the years 1968 to 1976 for working out 20 years profits as contemplated by the Explanation. 14. If, on the other hand, the above evidence is not helpful in arriving at a satisfactory conclusion as to the profits accruing during the years 1957 to 1967, it should take the mean of the profits for the years 1968 to 1976 and take that as annual fair average value, of course, after deducting 15 per cent from the gross profits. 15. The statute under consideration is confiscatory in nature, and, consequently, in determining the compensation the authorities should adopt that method consistently with the provisions of the Act which is more (favourable to the citizens. 16. This disposes of the principal controversy involved in the case leaving the last submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners to be considered. The contention was that the Courts below were not justified in deducting 15 per cent from the gross income earned from the fruit crops for ascertaining the net profits. The argument seems untenable. In working out the net profits some amount has necessarily to be deducted or counted for towards the expenses in the upkeep of the orchard. A deduction of 15 per cent can, by no stretch, be regarded as grossly excessive or unjustified. In my opinion, 15 per cent can very reasonably be regarded as the expenses which necessarily go towards the maintenance of the orchard. 17. In the premise, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 4-6-1978 passed by the 1st Addl. District Judge. Nainital is quashed. The appellate Court will now dispose of Ceiling Appeal No. 46 of 1978 according to law having regard to the observations made in this judgment. The petitioners shall be entitled to their constants from .he respondents. The appellate Court will dispose of the appeal with expedition, if possible, within three months from the date on which a certified copy of this judgment is filed before it. It will be open to both the parties to adduce such further evidence as regards the profits accruing during the yean 1957 to 1967 as they may choose to file.