JUDGMENT N.N. Mithal, J. - For the establishment of University at Meerut, the State acquired a large tract of land and notifications were initially issued on 7th May, 1965 and 20th of December, 1965 in pursuance of which possession was taken on the land on 9th September, 1966. The legality of the notifications was challenged and the same was ultimately quashed by this Court. Fresh acquisition proceedings were, therefore, initiated by issuing a notification under section 4 on 13th November, 1967 followed by notification under section 6 on 25th June, 1968. The Special Land Acquisition Officer made his award on 19th of March, 1970 dividing the acquired land in two belts. He fixed compensation at the rate of 5.22 per sq. yard for the land falling in belt one and at the rate of Rs. 4.50 per sq. yard for the land which fell in belt two. It is alleged that subsequent to this award, possession was taken by the State on 5th April, 1970. 2. Dissatisfied by-the award. the claimant applied to the Collector for making a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in which, apart from contending that the compensation awarded was low, it was also alleged that the claimant was entitled to interest on the compensation amount from 9th September, 1966 when possession over the land was taken by the State in pursuance of the earlier notification till the date of the payment. It was further contended that compensation in respect of grove situate in plot No. 221 was also low and instead of capitalising by eight years' purchase, the same should be awarded on the basis of twenty years' purchase. 3. The Additional District Judge, however, did not enhance the compensation for the land or the grove but accepted the reference in so far as it related to award of interest from the date of earlier possession i.e. 9th of September, 1966 till the date of payment. 4. The decision of the learned Additional District Judge has given rise to two appeals. First Appeal No. 78 of 1972 has been filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation so far as it relates to the grove. while First Appeal No. 107 of 1972 has been filed at the instance of the State of U.P. challenging the award of interest between the period 9th September, 1966 to 5th April. 1970. 5. First Appeal No. 78 of 1972 has been filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation so far as it relates to the grove. while First Appeal No. 107 of 1972 has been filed at the instance of the State of U.P. challenging the award of interest between the period 9th September, 1966 to 5th April. 1970. 5. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and apart from the question of enhancement of compensation for the grove, learned counsel for the claimant has also urged that in view of the amendments brought by Act 68 of 1984, solatium at the rate of 30% was payable and the rate of interest should also be enhanced from 6'%, to 12%, under Section 23(1) and 23(2) of the Act and also interest in terms of section 34 of the Act. 6. Learned Standing Counsel has candidly conceded that the claimant would be entitled to solatium calculated at the rate of 30%on the amount of compensation. He has, however, contested the other claims raised on behalf of the claimant. 7. The claimant has not raised any claim for enhancement of compensation of his land i.e. plot Nos. 209, 223/2, 225 and 239 and in this appeal the claim is confined to enhancement of compensation in respect of grove situate in plot No. 221 measuring 2 Bigha 14 Biswa. It is contended that the amount of compensation awarded i.e. Rs. 58.752/- has been calculated on the basis of 8 years' purchase which is much too low. He referred to the evidence where the claimant stated that this grove was planted by him in the year 1945-46 and out of 68 mango trees standing thereon, he was entitled to half of them. He further stated that he was selling produce at the rate of Rs. 5.000/- to Rs. 6,000/- per year. It has f further been stated that the life of a grafted mango tree is nearly 60 to 65 years and it starts giving full produce at the age of 12 to 13 years. He also stated that his grove was likely to give produce for another 30 to 35 years at the rate of 4 to 5 maunds mangoes per tree. No evidence was adduced from the side of the State except the certificate of the Horticulturist about the age and compensation etc. He also stated that his grove was likely to give produce for another 30 to 35 years at the rate of 4 to 5 maunds mangoes per tree. No evidence was adduced from the side of the State except the certificate of the Horticulturist about the age and compensation etc. On the basis of this evidence it was urged that since the life of expectancy of 35 years was still left and even after the expiry of that period, the claimant would be entitled to the timber of mango trees after they would be rendered barren and would also have full use of his land for cultivation, in these circumstances. coupled with the amount of profit which was likely to earn every year from the produce of the trees, it was urged that at least 20 years' profit should have been capitalised in order to arrive at the market value of the grove in question. 8. The above submission, however, does not take into account the fact, and the court can here take notice of the common experience, that mango produce is good in one year while it is normally lean in the next year. This is the normal cycle in which fruit produce from the mango groves is obtained. The argument also does not take into consideration the various uncertainties and vagaries of weather, the natural calamities. the expenses for the maintenance of the grove in a proper shape and also the possibility of the plant and fruit diseases which are so common in this country as also the pests which too required to be controlled. Apart from this, the argument also does not take into account that compensation was being paid in lump sum while the income from produce was likely to be spread over a number of years. When all these negative factors are taken into account it is not possible to justifiably claim that the income spreading over 35 years should have been taken as a basis for arriving at the market value of the grove. Even the multiple of 20 cannot be said to be reasonable. 9. The learned Standing Counsel referred to me to the portion of the judgment of the Court where he had referred to paragraph 482 of the Revenue Manual touching upon the award of compensation for land. Even the multiple of 20 cannot be said to be reasonable. 9. The learned Standing Counsel referred to me to the portion of the judgment of the Court where he had referred to paragraph 482 of the Revenue Manual touching upon the award of compensation for land. It will be noticed that these instructions regarding the award and apportionment of compensation occurs in Chapter XV of the Manual. Para 455 lays down as under : "A Collector's award under the Act cannot be challenged by the Government in the courts. The Government has therefore laid down the following instructions limiting the discretion of Collectors in making awards in order to check extravagance, and it holds Collectors responsible for observing them. It should be understood, however, that the Collector is expected to award the market value of all items of property acquired under the Act, and that where a valuation at the maximum rates provided in these instructions would result in the award of compensation less than the market value, general or special sanction should be sought in the manner indicated in paragraph 497, to use higher rates. An addition of 15 per cent, must also be made to the market value, as provided in Section 23(2) of the Act." 10. The next relevant paragraph is 456 which may be quoted as under : "The maxima have been fixed with a view to giving Collectors considerable discretion and to avoiding frequent references to higher authority. It must be clearly understood that a Collector is by no means bound to award the maximum compensation permissible under the instructions, if the market value is found to be less". 11. It is in this light that one should read paragraph 482 of the instructions which is as follows : "482.(1) The market value of trees depends in some instances on the value of the timber and in others on the value of the fruit. Thus, in the case of common mango trees the value of the timber generally determines the price in private transactions (or sale in execution of decree). In these and similar instances the cubic content of the trees should be estimated and the compensation should be awarded at the rate ascertained to be paid locally for unfilled timber. (2) In the case of orchards of guavas, lichis, oranges and the like, the value of the timber is usually negligible. In these and similar instances the cubic content of the trees should be estimated and the compensation should be awarded at the rate ascertained to be paid locally for unfilled timber. (2) In the case of orchards of guavas, lichis, oranges and the like, the value of the timber is usually negligible. A fair average value of the fruit crops should be ascertained (the average being calculated-over a considerable series of years) and compensation may be awarded at the rate not exceeding eight times that value, unless special sanction to a higher rate is obtained in a particular case. (3) In the case of superior mangoes, the market value is perhaps determined both by the yield of fruit and by the value of the timber but, unless it is clearly provided that this is the practice in the neighbourhood, compensation should be awarded only for timber or for fruit. (4) For young fruit trees which have not yet borne fruit, and for ornamental or rate trees and plants in it will usually be found that no market value is ascertainable. In such cases compensation equal to the original (if any) of planting and tending may be awarded." 12. These instructions lay down the various alternative methods in which the market value of the trees and groves is to be determined. Sub-clause(2) deals with the case of orchards of fruit bearing trees like guava and lichis where the value of the timber is negligible and in that connection it is provided that in order to determine its value a fair average value of fruit crop should be ascertained and capitalised up to 8 times to arrive at the market value. In case higher market value is deemed necessary,-special sanction of the Government would be required. In case of superior mangoes it is laid down that the market value should be determined both by yield of fruits and the value of the timber, if such a practice is established. In the absence of such a practice, the compensation should be awarded only for timber or for fruit. 13. The learned Standing Counsel has, therefore, urged that in no case, the market value can be determined at more than 8 times the annual produce of the grove. I find it difficult to agree with this submission. These are executive instructions as so clearly indicated by para 455. 13. The learned Standing Counsel has, therefore, urged that in no case, the market value can be determined at more than 8 times the annual produce of the grove. I find it difficult to agree with this submission. These are executive instructions as so clearly indicated by para 455. These are designed .merely to curtail the discretion to be exercised by the Collector in awarding compensation and to check extra-vagance. These executive. instructions, however, cannot be said to be binding on the court. The court under Section 23 is required to arrive at the. fair market value of the property for the purposes of awarding compensation. Thus the view of the trial court that the maximum that-could be awarded to the claimant by way of compensation could not exceed 8 times the annual produce of the grove is erroneous and can not be accepted. 14. This matter has come up for consideration in various decision and I would refer to some of them which are relevant for our Proposes. In Kompalli Nageswara Rao v. Special Deputy Collector, AIR 1959 Andh Pra 52 the court was considering the question. of valuing the orchards and in that connection it was held that the approved method for valuing the orchards was to capitalise their net income at the number of years' purchase which had to be fixed with reference to the nature of trees and other circumstances. In that case a variety of fruit bearing trees were standing in the acquired grove and for different kinds of trees, different years of purchase were fixed for the purposes of capitalisation. The case also referred to a decision reported in AIR 1951 Madras 356 where 20 years' purchase was allowed for mango trees. 15. In Collector, Raigarh v. Chaturbhuj Panda, AIR 1964 Madh Pra 196 a similar question arose in respect of a grove of orange trees. In that case, it was held that capitalisation of profits was generally made at the rate of interest at 5% per annum. In the case of properties yielding income permanently, capitalised value is measured by 20 times the annual profit. When an income is derived annually for several years to come, it is necessary to find the present worth of the income to be derived in future years at a reasonable rate of interest. 16. In the case of properties yielding income permanently, capitalised value is measured by 20 times the annual profit. When an income is derived annually for several years to come, it is necessary to find the present worth of the income to be derived in future years at a reasonable rate of interest. 16. In Union of India v. Smt. Shanti Devi, AIR 1983 SC 1190 the capitalised value. of the property was defined as under : "The capitalised value of a property is the amount of money whose annual interest at the highest prevailing interest at any given time will be its net annual income. The net annual income from a land is arrived at by deducting from the gross annual income all outgoings such as expenditure on cultivation, land revenue etc. The net return from Landed property, generally speaking, reflects the prevalent rate of interest on safe money investments." 17. In that case nearly 70000 acres of land had been acquired in the Kangra region of Himachal Pradesh for Beas Dam Project. The High Court had capitalised on the basis of 20 years purchase rule and fixed compensation accordingly. The Supreme Court reduced this compensation by th and awarded on the basis of 15 years purchase rule. 18. The latest decision . on the point is Special Land Acquisition Officer v. P. Veerabhadranna, (1984) 2 SCC 120 : AIR 1984 SC 774 . The Supreme Court considered the various cases from earlier times to date and came to the conclusion that capitalisation generally is related to interest rate on safe investment. After referring to a number of cases, in paragraph 20 of the Report, the court observed as under : "In regard to investment in agricultural lands, there are many imponderables inasmuch as the investor runs a much greater risk than the risk that he runs in investment in housing which consists in vagaries of weather and other uncertainties. There is no security of principal, no liquidity of investment nor any certainty of income. The appreciation of principal or income is also uncertain. There is no security of principal, no liquidity of investment nor any certainty of income. The appreciation of principal or income is also uncertain. The reasons for these is that agricultural lands are not readily transferable under the various land reform legislation e.g. laws relating to ceiling on agricultural holdings under the existing State Laws and tenancy laws which place restrictions of transfer of such lands with concomitant danger of effacement of the rights of the absentee-landlords and the creation of rights in the tillers of the soil. In evaluating the rate of return which would ordinarily satisfy an investor in such a property, the risk factor has further to be evaluated. There may be total or partial failure of crops either through failure of rain or drought, or inadequate or excessive rainfall. There may be a failure of crops on account of locust invasion or insects or pests. The cost imputs such as seeds, water, fertilizers, labour charges etc. would vary from year to year. If the overall cost goes up, the income from agricultural produce would be comparatively less. The fluctuations in price of agricultural pry- ice introduce a great deal of uncertainty -, regard to income that can be expected from the sale of the produce. If the yield of the crop in other producing countries is large, or the market prices prevailing in such countries are low, the prices of such agricultural produce in India would go down. In view of these considerations, an investor would expect a much higher rate of return so that the risk factor is properly discounted." 19. Since the acquisition in the aforesaid case was made in 1971-72. the Court arrived at a multiple of 121/2 for computing the capitalised value of land. According to it, the annual income multiplied by it should determine the market value of the property. In the present case, however, we are concerned with acquisition which started in 1967. Interest rate in 1967 was much less t ha n 8.25"x% which was prevailing in the year 1971- 72. 20. On enquiries made from the State Bank of India it has been pointed out that in the year 1967-68 the rate of interest which the Bank was paying on deposits for more than 60 months was six and half per cent. 20. On enquiries made from the State Bank of India it has been pointed out that in the year 1967-68 the rate of interest which the Bank was paying on deposits for more than 60 months was six and half per cent. If this is taken as a multiple for computing capitalised value of the grove then the annual profit derived from it at the time of initiation of acquisitions proceedings should be multiplied by sixteen. However, this is always subject to various imponderables which also must be accounted for. In AIR 1959 Andh Pra 52 (supra) the Land Acquisition Officer had valued the grove by capitalising the estimated annual net income from the fruit- bearing trees by multiplying it by the estimated number of years the trees were expected to bear fruits and by adding fuel value of such trees as had discontinued yielding any fruits. Similarly in AIR 1964 Madh Pra 196 (supra) the court took the view that the capitalisation of profit should generally be done at the rate of interest at 5% per annum. However, in both the above cases we find that there was overwhelming expert evidence of several Horticulture experts who had estimated the age of the trees, number of years the trees were likely to bear fruits and also the yield which each tree was capable of, along with the market price of the fruits produced. In the present case we do not have the advantage of any such expert evidence. Evidence on behalf of the State only consists of some certificates giving rates of profit by the District Agricultural Office, District Horticulture Inspector and the District Plant Protection Specialist regarding the fruit yield of the trees and on its basis the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation calculated at eight times of such profits. This the lower court has accepted. 21. In view of the principles that have been enunciated by the various High Courts and the Supreme Court the market value of a grove ought to be determined on the basis of number of years within which, at the existing rate of interest, the entire value of the property was likely to be recovered. 21. In view of the principles that have been enunciated by the various High Courts and the Supreme Court the market value of a grove ought to be determined on the basis of number of years within which, at the existing rate of interest, the entire value of the property was likely to be recovered. Looking to the rate of interest of six and half percent prevailing in 1967-68 and after giving allowances for the various imponderables and also possible exaggeration in the income said to have been derived from the grove by the, claimant, I am of the opinion that instead of 16 times the proper and reasonable multiple that should be applied in this case would be twelve in the light of all the attending circumstances of the case. Since according to the appellant he used to sell the produce for Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- annually. it would be reasonable to fix the net income derived from the grove at Rs. 5,000/-, allowance being made for the expenses etc. Multiplying this figure by 12 the market value of the grove would come to Rs. 60,000/-, which in my opinion should be the fair market value of the grove at the relevant time. 22. The court below has awarded interest from the date of delivery of possession viz. 9- 9-66 against which the State has come up in appeal. It is admitted that there had been an earlier acquisition proceeding in pursuance of which possession was taken by the Collector on 9-9-1966 but subsequently those proceedings had been quashed by the High Court and fresh proceedings were initiated. It is contended that in pursuance of the fresh proceeding possession was taken again on 5-4-1970. The learned Standing Counsel, therefore, urged that this latter date should be the relevant date from which interest should be computed and not from the earlier date. 23. The reasons given by the court below are cogent and are also in consonance with the view expressed by a Division Bench decision of this Court rendered in First Appeal No. 30 of 1972 decided on 23-8-1974. That was the decision rendered in this very acquisition proceedings and it was held therein that the interest ought to be calculated from the date of deprivation of use of the land by the claimant which, in this case. is obviously from 9-9-66. That was the decision rendered in this very acquisition proceedings and it was held therein that the interest ought to be calculated from the date of deprivation of use of the land by the claimant which, in this case. is obviously from 9-9-66. Reliance for this view was placed on AIR 1961 SC 808 . The said decision by the Division Bench was later reiterated by another Division Bench in First Appeal No. 79 of 1972 Laxman Singh v. State of U.P. presided over by Hon'ble M.N. Shukla, A.C.J. and Hon'ble B.D. Agarwal, J. In view of the above two decisions I find no merit in the contentions raised on behalf of the State and the view of the court below in so far as it relates to the award of interest from 9-9-1966 is upheld. 24. This leads us to the next question raised viz. regarding enhanced amount of solatium and higher rate of interest. It was submitted that in view of Section 30(2) of the Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 1984 the appellant was entitled to receive interest calculated at the rate of 9% and also solatium at the rate of 30% on the amount of compensation awarded. The matter came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Bagh Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, AIR 1985 SC 1476 where it was emphasised that the State Govt. must do what is fair and just to the citizens and should not, as far as possible, except in cases where tax or revenue is received or recovered without contest or where the State Government would otherwise be irretrievably prejudiced, take up a technical plea to defeat the legitimate and just claim of the citizen. 25. Interpreting the effect of amendment on Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the Act it was held that the appeal against the award would be continuation of the proceedings initiated before the Court by way of reference under Section 18 and when the High Court hears the appeal, it would in effect and substance be hearing the reference and while determining the amount of compensation, it would have to give effect to Sections 23 and 28 as it finds them at the date of decision of the appeal. 26. 26. Proceeding further the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed : "When Section 23, sub-section(1) provides that in determining the amount of compensation the court shall take into consideration matters specified in the various sub-clauses of that sub-section and Sub section (2) of Section 23 directs that in addition to the market value of the land the court shall in every case award a sum of 15% per centum of such market value in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition, the mandate of these two sub-sections must apply equally whether the court is hearing a reference or the High Court is hearing an appeal against an award made by the Court. The amended provision in Section 23, Sub-section (2) and Section 28 would, therefore, have to be applied by the High Court in determining the amount of. compensation. 27. As a result of the above this Court is bound to give effect to the amended provisions now contained in Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. As a consequence the appellant would be entitled to 30% of the market value of the property determined by the court by way of solatium and in addition to interest calculated (d 9% on the amount of compensation, subject of course of adjustment of any amount that has already been paid by the State. 28. In the result while the appeal filed by the State (First Appeal No. 107/72) fails and is hereby dismissed. the other First Appeal No. 78 of 1972 filed by the claimants is, however, allowed to the extent that the appellant would be entitled to Rs. 60,000/-by way of compensation for the grove situate in Plot No. 221. The appellant herein shall also be entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% of such compensation together with 9% interest per annum on the compensation amount from 9-9-1966 up to the date of payment. It is, however, made clear that if any amount has already paid or deposited in pursuance of these acquisition proceedings in respect of the grove in question the same shall be duly adjusted from the amount as now payable. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, it would be only fair and reasonable that the parties in the two appeals be left to fend for their respective costs here in this Court.