C. V. JANI, J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) SIXTEEN First Appeals Nos. 994/82 to 1008/82 and No. 1015/82 under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 filed by the State of Gujarat arise from a common judgment and different awards delivered by the learned Second Extra Assistant Judge Junagadh in 16 Land Reference Cases Nos. 18/80 19 13 14 15 12 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 and 11/81 respectively in respect of acquisition of different parcels of agricultural lands of village Malenka in Mendarda Tulaka of Junagadh District acquired for the purpose of construction of Madhuvanti Dam under the Irrigation Scheme. The remaining claimants against the awards made in Land Reference Cases Nos. 5/81 19 12 and 4/31. The claimants have also filed cross-objections in the First Appeals No. 994 998 1007 1507 and 1017/82 filed by the State against those awards made in Land Reference Cases in which the claimants as well as the State Government have challenged the awards made by the learned Judge in sixteen different Land Reference Cases. ( 2 ) THE details regarding Survey Nos. quality area and the number of fruit-bearing trees on the lands involved are tabulated as under: (Please see Table on p. 489.) ( 3 ) NOTIFICATION dated 25-11-1969 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 hereinafter referred to as the fact was published in the Government Gazette on 12-12-1969. After publication of the notification under Section 6 of the Act on 23-9-1970 and after serving the claimants with the notices under Section 9 of the Act and after hearing them the Special Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated 31-1-1973 granted compensation at the rate of 0. 37 Ps. per sq. mt. for non-irrigated or Jarayat land and at the rate of 0. 45 ps. per sq. mt. for irrigated or Bagayat land. As the owners of the lands had claimed compensation at the rate of Re. 1. 25 Ps. per sq. mt. for Jarayat land and Rs. 2. 50 Ps. per sq. mt. for Bagayat land from the very beginning they moved for a reference to the District Court under Section 18 of the Act. Thus their claim for compensation was at the rate of Rs. 12 5000 per hectare for Jarayat and Rs. 1. 25 Ps. per sq. mt. for Jarayat land and Rs. 2. 50 Ps. per sq. mt. for Bagayat land from the very beginning they moved for a reference to the District Court under Section 18 of the Act. Thus their claim for compensation was at the rate of Rs. 12 5000 per hectare for Jarayat and Rs. 25 0 per hectare for Bagayat land as against the award by the Special Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of Rs. 3 700 per hectare for Jarayat land and Rs. 4 500 per hectare for Bagayat land. F. A. by State Arising from L. R. By the S. No. Category of H - A Sq. Mt. Fruit C. claimants Land Bearing Trees 994 18 X-obj. 42 Jarayat 3-00-48 - 995 19 825 24 Bagayat 18-86-86 79 996 13 - 26 Jarayat 10-42-07 2 997 14 - 35 Jarayat 2-83-84 3 998 15 X-obj. 41 Jarayat 9-56-07 83 999 12 826 21 Bagayat 13-99-20 8 1000 2 - 27 Jarayat 2-83-28 - 1001 3 - 27 Jarayat 3-42-49 - 1002 4 824 20 Bagayat 9-51-02 34 1003 5 824 25 Bagayat 9-85-42 83 1004 6 - 23 Jarayat 12-36-32 - 29 1 - 1005 7 - 22/1 Jarayat 3-83-45 3 1006 8 - 28 Bagayat 0-51-9. 50 - 1007 9 X-obj. 39 Bagayat 2-85-08 - 1008 10 X-obj. 38 Bagayat 1-47-01. 42 1 1015 11 - 22/2 Bagayat 3-80-40 27 ( 4 ) ALL the references were consolidated at the request of the claimants and common evidence was recorded in LHC No. 18/80. No evidence regarding any comparable sale instance was produced by either side. The claimants rested satisfied with leading oral evidence of some of the claimants and three other witnesses. The claimant of LRC No. 19 from which the States Appeal No. 995/81 and the claimants appeal No. 825/83 has arisen produced some documentary evidence. Some revenue records in the form of Pahnipatraks were also produced in order to show the agricultural produce and income from fruit-bearing trees in some cases. A map Ex. 52 in respect of the neighbouring village Ambala was also produced in order to show that lands in Ambala were not comparable with the lands in Malenka. Some revenue records in the form of Pahnipatraks were also produced in order to show the agricultural produce and income from fruit-bearing trees in some cases. A map Ex. 52 in respect of the neighbouring village Ambala was also produced in order to show that lands in Ambala were not comparable with the lands in Malenka. In this context a copy of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in respect of the lands acquired for the same purpose from village Ambala was also produced in order to show that the value of the lands of Malenka would be certainly higher than the value of the lands in Ambala as determined by the High Court. The State Government examined the Talati of village Malenka a Revenue Circle Officer and an Agricultural Supervisor for indicating the average yield from the fruit-bearing trees and other agricultural produces like wheat ground-nut millet rachka etc. The State Government also did not choose to produce any evidence regarding comparable sale instances. In view of this state of evidence the learned Judge had to resort to the method of capitalisation in order to determine the value of the lands involved in these appeals. The learned Judge observed that it would be natural for the claimants to make exaggerated claims and therefore the evidence of the Agricultural Supervisor would afford a good guide. The learned Judge took into consideration the uncertainty involved in the agricultural occupation and the calamities that may have to be faced from time to time and on an overall consideration of the relevant facts the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the average net income in the year 1969 would be about Rs. 150. 00 per bigha (as in Saurashtra) and the fair-market value of such Jarayat land would be Rs. 1 500 per bigha on application of ten years multiple The learned Judge also found that the Bagayat lands would be valued at 12 1/2 times that is at about Rs. 2 320 per bigha. The learned Judge rejected the claim for compensation in respect of wells engine rooms pipe lines etc. on the ground that the claimants had failed to lead any evidence in respect of the exact expenditure incurred by them in making such construction. 2 320 per bigha. The learned Judge rejected the claim for compensation in respect of wells engine rooms pipe lines etc. on the ground that the claimants had failed to lead any evidence in respect of the exact expenditure incurred by them in making such construction. The learned Judge also valued the fruit-bearing trees at ten times the yearly produce and added this value to the value of the lands. The learned Judge awarded solatium at the rate of 15% on the resulting sum in cases and proportionate costs to the claimants. In short the learned Judge awarded Rs. 9 400 per hectare in respect of Jarayat land and Rs. 14 500 per hectare in respect of Bagayat lands over and above the value of the fruit-bearing trees. It is these awards of the learned Judge that are being challenged by the original claimants on the ground that the learned Judge should have awarded compensation at the rate claimed by them while the awards are being challenged on behalf of the State Government on the ground that the learned Judge has committed an error in valuing some portion twice in the lands with fruit-bearing trees and the award made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer reflected the correct market value. ( 5 ) MR. D. K. Trivedi learned in-charge Government Pleader appearing for the State of Gujarat has mainly submitted that the learned Judge committed an error in not deducting the area of land on which fruit-bearing trees were standing from the total area which was valued for the purpose of capitalisation. He further submitted that the lands of Malenka could not have been valued at Rs. 1 500 or Rs. 2 320 per bigha as the case may be in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in respect of the lands of neighbouring village Ambala which had been acquired for the same purpose. On the other hand it was submitted on behalf of the original claimants that the learned Judge has clearly committed an error in not awarding any compensation for the wells or engine rooms situated on some of the lands even though the existence of such wells or rooms was not at all challenged either in cross-examination or by leading evidence. It was further submitted by Mr. It was further submitted by Mr. Dhanesha learned Advocate on behalf of the claimants that the learned Judge did not discuss the oral evidence of the claimants regarding the agricultural produce or the prevailing price of such produce nor did he logically draw necessary inference from the evidence of the Agricultural Supervisor or the Talati who had been examined by the Government itself. In short Mr. Dhanesha submitted that the amounts as claimed by the claimants should have been awarded by the learned Judge on the basis of the evidence of the Agricultural Supervisor and the Talati who were Government witnesses. ( 6 ) SO far as the first submission made by Mr. D. K. Trivedi is concerned it is clear that the learned Judge has added the value of the fruit-bearing trees to the value of the lands in certain cases. Ordinarily a tree can be presumed to occupy about 6 sq. mt. of land and it would be difficult at this stage in absence of definite evidence on the point to estimate the exact area that may be occupied by different kinds of trees. However it appears from the overall evidence on record that some trees are standing on the hedges of some lands while so far as First Appeal No. 995 is concerned the entire land admeasuring 32 gunthas which is described as garden land in the revenue record is occupied by 79 fruit-bearing trees. It is therefore obvious that the land admeasuring 32 gunthas of Survey No. 24 will have to be excluded for the purpose of valuation from the total area of 18 hectares 86 ares and 86 sq. mt. So far as other lands are concerned some area will have to be deducted from the concerned land at the rate of 6 sq. mt. per tree. Hence Mr. Trivedi is right in his submission that the following deduction will have to be made from the total area of lands involved in each appeal: (Please see Table on p. 492.) no such question of deducting area in respect of fruit-bearing trees arises in the remaining cases. To this extent Mr. Trivedi succeeds in his submission and we will have to make necessary deductions at the time of placing valuation on the lands involved. ( 7 ) MR. Trivedi has further referred to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal Nos. To this extent Mr. Trivedi succeeds in his submission and we will have to make necessary deductions at the time of placing valuation on the lands involved. ( 7 ) MR. Trivedi has further referred to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal Nos. 10/75 11 and 12/75 decided on 29-12-1980 in respect of certain lands of the neighbouring village Ambala which had been acquired for the same purpose in the year 1971 and according to Mr. Trivedis submission value of the lands in Malenka cannot be more than Rs. 81 per are for Jarayat lands and Rs. 95. 00 per are for Bagayat lands as awarded by the High Court. So far as the lands of Ambala are concerned all the claimants and their witnesses have specifically stated that the lands of Ambala were of an inferior quality as the one situated in a hilly area thereby resulting into lessor fertility. A copy of the judgment is found at Ex. 15 in the lower Courts record. A look at the judgment shows that several sale instances were produced by the parties for the purpose of valuation of the lands of Ambala and it was on the basis of comparison of such sale instances that the lower Court as well as the High Court came to the conclusion that the lands could be valued at a particular rate. No evidence had been led regarding agricultural produce or yield from fruits. On the other hand no evidence has been led in the present cases regarding comparable sale instances and the entire emphasis is placed on the net return from agricultural income and fruit trees. Hence the basis for determining compensation in the present sixteen cases and the basis for determining compensation of the lands of Ambala are entirely different and the judgment of the Division Bench in First Appeals No. 10/75 11 and 12/75 cannot be of any use in determining compensation of the Courts of Malenka since nobody says that the lands are comparable. Even no contention was raised on behalf of the State in the lower Court that the value of Malenka lands should be based on the value of Ambala lands Hence this contention of Mr. Trivedi has no substance and it requires to be rejected. Even no contention was raised on behalf of the State in the lower Court that the value of Malenka lands should be based on the value of Ambala lands Hence this contention of Mr. Trivedi has no substance and it requires to be rejected. ( 8 ) ORDINARILY therefore we should have accepted the valuation placed by the learned Judge and we would have deducted pro-rata value of the lands occupied by fruit bearing trees in certain cases. However we have to still consider the submissions of Mr. Dhanesha on the point of valuation of the lands placed by the learned Judge. The learned Judge has prepared a table showing net income per bigha from various crops like ground-nut millet jowar wheat cotton etc. The learned Judge has accepted the average net income at Rs. 150. 00 per bigha for F. A. No. by State LRC By claimant S. No. Area Area to be Area to be H. A. deducted Gs. valued on Sq. M. the basis of agri. produce H. A. Sq. M. - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 -- 995 19 825 24 18 32 18 996 13 26 10 No calculation 10-42-07 need by made regarding 2 trees standing on this land 997 14 - 35 02-83-34 No calculation 02-83-34 need the made regarding 3 trees standing on this land. 1005 7 - 22/1 03-83-45 03-83-45 1008 10 x-Obj 38 01-47-01 42 Nothing 01-47-01. 42 substantial will have to be deducted in respect of the tree. 998 15 x. Obj 41 09-56-07 About 500 sq. 09-51-07 mt. for 83 trees 999 12 826 21 13 48 sq. mt. 13-78-72 will have to be deducted for 34 trees. 1002 4 827 20 9 204 sq. mt. 09-49-98 will have to be deducted for 34 trees. 1003 5 824 25 9 About 500 sq. 09-80-42 mt. will have to be deducted for 83 trees 1007 9 x-Obj 39 02-86-08 426 sp. mt. 02-87-82 will have to be deducted for 71 trees. 1015 11 - 22/2 03-80-40 162 sp. mr. 03-78-78 will have to be deducted for 27 trees. jarayat land of medium quality and he has applied a multiple of 10 for arriving at the value of such lands. Mr. Dhanesha submitted that the court should have applied multiple of 20. mt. 02-87-82 will have to be deducted for 71 trees. 1015 11 - 22/2 03-80-40 162 sp. mr. 03-78-78 will have to be deducted for 27 trees. jarayat land of medium quality and he has applied a multiple of 10 for arriving at the value of such lands. Mr. Dhanesha submitted that the court should have applied multiple of 20. He further submitted that the net income would be something more in view of the oral evidence of the claimants and the Governments witness - Shyamjibhai. He entered into a threadbare comparison of such evidence and the entries made in the table by the learned Judge. It is not possible to have such a comparison and the learned Judge has given cogent reasons for ar riving at a rough calculation regarding the net income. The learned Judge has referred to several factors like rainfall vagaries of claimate invasion by insects and calamities like untimely rains shortage of rain. cyclone famine severe heat etc. and irregularity in supply of canal water if there be any and other factors which may have varying effect on the agricultural production from year to year. There is not exact yardstick for measuring the net income and there is also no exact yardstick for arriving at the fair-market value of the land on the basis of the agricultural produce. Valuation of land itself is a matter of guess-work and after arriving at such a figure of net income per year it will have to be capitalised by applying proper multiplior. ( 9 ) IN Union of India and Another v. Smt. Shanti Devi etc. etc. AIR 1983 SC 1190 Their Lortships adopted a multiplier of 15 years purchase in determining the compensation payable in respect of the lands acquired in or about the year 1962-63. The following facts weighed with Their Lordships as pointed out in para 16 of the judgment:10 A perusal of the decisions referred to above and some others which have not been cited here shows that in India the multiplier which is adopted in determining the compensation by the capitalisation method has been 33 1/5 25 20 16 2 11 and 8. The number of years purchase has gradually decreased as the prevailing rate of interest realisable from safe investments has gradually increased the higher the rate of interest the lower the number of years purchase. The number of years purchase has gradually decreased as the prevailing rate of interest realisable from safe investments has gradually increased the higher the rate of interest the lower the number of years purchase. This method of valuation involves capitalising the net income that the property can fairly be expected to produce and the rate of capitalisation is the percentage of return on his investment that a willing buyer would expect from the property during the relevant period. It was once felt that the relevant rate of interest that should be taken into consideration was the interest which gilt-edged securities or Government bonds would normally fetch. The safety and liquidity of the investment in bonds were relied on as the twin factors to take the view that the interest on gilt-edged securities should alone be taken into consideration. This was at a time there were not many avenues of safe investments and investment in private commercial concerns was not quite reliable. But from the year 1959-60 circumstances have gradually changed. There are many State Banks and nationalised banks in which deposits made are quite safe. Even in the share market we have many blue chips which command stability and other attendant benefits such as the possibility of issue of bonus shares and rights shares themselves. They are attracting a lot of capital investment. A return of 10% per annum on such safe investments is almost assured. Today nobody thinks of investing on land which would yield net income of just 5% to 6% per annum. A higher return of the order of 10% is usually anticipated. Even in the years 1962 and 1963 an investor in agricultural land yielded a net annual expected annual net return of at least 8%. It means that if the land yielded a net annual income of Rs. 8. 00 a willing buyer of land would have paid for it Rs. 100 a little more than 12 times the annual net income. The multiplier for purposes of capitalisation would be about thirteen. It means that if the land yielded a net annual income of Rs. 8. 00 a willing buyer of land would have paid for it Rs. 100 a little more than 12 times the annual net income. The multiplier for purposes of capitalisation would be about thirteen. ( 10 ) IN Special Land Acquisition Officer Davangere v. Veerabhandarappa and Other (1984) 2 SCC 120 Their Lordships after discussing the return of gilt-edged securities i. e. Government securities and the greater return from fixed deposits with nationalised banks national saving certificates unit trust and other forms of Government certificates or share market came to the following conclusion:19 As already stated some 20 to 30 years back i. e. till the early 50s it was taken as a settled rule of practice that the capitalized value of agricultural lands should be arrived at 20 years purchase having regard to the rate of interest on gilt-edged securities at five per cent. That rule no longer can be adhered to in view of the changed economic situation. In the early 70s people believed that investment in housing was more secure than other forms of Government securities in respect of safety of investment. Investment in housing involves certainty of labour and effort such as maintenance collection of rent payment of taxes etcetera. The rate of return expected therefore was 1 1/2 per cent to 2 1/2 per cent more than what was expected from gilt-edged securities. A person investing his capital in agricultural lands would ordinarily expect return of 2 per cent to 3 per cent more than what he could obtain from quite gilt-edged securities or other forms of safe investment such as fixed deposits in scheduled banks National Saving Certificates Unit Trust etcetera or on blue chips i. e. on stocks and shares in the public or private sector which yield a much greater return. 20 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 return legislations e. g. laws relating to ceiling on agricultural holdings under the existing State laws and tenancy laws which place restrictions on 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 inputs such as seeds water fertilizer 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 produce introduce a greater deal of uncertainty in regard to the 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. 21 In the premises when the rate of return on investment was 8. 25 per cent in the years 1971 and 1972 person investing his capital in agricultural lands would ordinarily expert 2 per cent to 3 per cent more than what he could obtain from gilt-edged securities or other forms of safe investment and therefore the proper multiplier to be applied for the purpose of capitalization could not in any event exceed ten. In the present case the State Government however contends that the proper multiple to be applied should be 12 1/2 in computation of the capitalized value of the lands in these cases having regard to the rate of return of 8 per cent at the relevant time i. e. on the date of the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act. In view of this it must be held that the multiple of 12 1/2 should be applied in computation of the capitalized value of the lands. ( 11 ) IN the present case the lands were acquired in the year 1979 and the return in safe investments must have been lesser than 8. 25 per cent and in fact neither side has pointed out the existing rate of return existing in the year 1969. Hence even if we assume for the time being that the rate of return even in the year 1969 was 8. 25 per cent we should be justified in adopting the multiplier of 12. 5 in computing the capitalized value of the lands. The result would be that the compensation awarded by the lower Court will have to be enhanced by 25% in general. ( 12 ) MR. Dhanesha is right in his submission that the learned Judge has committed an error in not awarding any compensation for the wells existing on certain lands simply on the ground that the parties have failed to lead evidence in detail regarding the expenditure they had to incur while constructing such wells. So far as the evidence on record is concerned there is no denial that there were wells in Survey Nos. 24 21 20 25 28 39 38 and 22/2 but no cross-examination on this point was made on behalf of the State. Simply because the agriculturists did not furnish what expenditure they had to incur the learned Judge could not have rejected their claim in toto. The learned Judge should have at least relied on the oral evidence in this regard and should have awarded some compensation for the wells as well as for the engine rooms in some cases. 1-7-1991 ( 13 ) THOUGH the claimants claimed to have made an exaggerated claim of having spent about Rs. 7 0 to Rs. The learned Judge should have at least relied on the oral evidence in this regard and should have awarded some compensation for the wells as well as for the engine rooms in some cases. 1-7-1991 ( 13 ) THOUGH the claimants claimed to have made an exaggerated claim of having spent about Rs. 7 0 to Rs. 8 0 for the construction of each well it appears from the original claims by the concerned claimants before the Land Acquisition Officer that they had claimed on an average of Rs. 3 0 for the loss of well and Rs. 3 0 for the loss of engine room. We are of the view that this moderate amount can be awarded to each concerned appellant by way of compensation for the loss of each well and/or the engine room in First Appeals No. 814/83 815 828 821 1007 and 1008/82. So far as First Appeal No. 826/83 is concerned an amount of Rs. 1 0 only can be awarded as the construction of the well was incomplete when the land was acquired. ( 14 ) MR. Dhaneshas second contention was that the lower Court committed an error in not taking into consideration the oral evidence of the claimants regarding the annual yield and the prevailing price or crops at the relevant time. He further submitted that reliance could not have been placed on the evidence of the Government witnesses only. He further submitted that the lower Court committed an error in finding the net income of Jarayat land per bigha to be Rs. 150. 00 only. According to Mr. Dhanesha this finding was based on the table prepared by the learned Judge regarding the agricultural expences in respect of different crops which according to Mr. Dhanesha was not consistently the figures given by the expert Agricultural Supervisor Shyamjibhai. Mr. Dhanesha submitted that even if the evidence of the Agricultural Supervisor and the Talati is accepted the net income per bigha would be much higher. Apparently it appears to be so. But if we go through the reasoning of the learned Judge we find that the learned Judge has taken a balanced view by adopting a guarded approach. Mr. Dhanesha submitted that even if the evidence of the Agricultural Supervisor and the Talati is accepted the net income per bigha would be much higher. Apparently it appears to be so. But if we go through the reasoning of the learned Judge we find that the learned Judge has taken a balanced view by adopting a guarded approach. The learned Judge has prepared a chart of the net income of the claimants from various crops in para 9 of the judgment and the net income reflected in this table is certainly higher than the net income which has been accepted as a basis by the learned Judge for determining the market value. However the learned Judge has also taken into account negative factors like vagaries of monsoon uncertainties of climate possible infection and invasion by insects and locust calamities like shortage of rain water cyclone famine shortage of seeds and manure and the quality of land. The learned Judge had found that the result as per the table reflecting higher net income can be secured only when the land is of superior quality and fertility and other climatic factors are good every year. The learned Judge has found that the lands which were acquired were of medium quality. The learned Judge was therefore right in holding that the net average income of the Jarayat land in question was about Rs. 150. 00 per bigha. Moreover in view of the fact that the claimants of Bagayat lands used to grow different crops during winter and not always cotton or wheat we do not want to interfere with the finding of the learned Judge that the Bagayat lands in this area should be valued at 1/2 times the value of the Jarayat lands. The learned Judge has placed the value of Bagayat lands at Rs. 2 320 per bigha a multiplier of 12 1/2 will be applied in computation of capitalized value of such lands. ( 15 ) SO far as the value placed by the learned Judge on fruit-bearing trees is concerned we are not inclined to interfere in view of the fact that the learned Judge has not only considered the possible multiplier of 20 years purchase as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madras v. Rev. Brother Joseph AIR 1973 SC 2463 but also the fact that certain fruit trees bear fruits not every real but every alternative year and so the proper multiplier would be 10 and not 20. We do not think that the learned Judge has committed any error in adopting the multiplier of 10 in such cases. Moreover the normal life of the fruit bearing trees like mango trees banana lemon trees pears and other trees giving timber wood or fuel wood like babul banyan or pipal is not uniform it would be difficult and almost impossible to adopt in each case a different multiplier for different trees. So far as S. No. 26 involved in First Appeal No. 995/82 is concerned there were no doubt 15 mango trees and 44 other trees but the value of mango trees would be oft-set by the lesser value of the other trees. Hence if the lower Court has adopted multiplier of 10 in the case of fruit-bearing trees we do not think it requires interference at this stage because of some difference in value of different trees on a detailed calculation as the interest of the claimants holding Bagayat land having different types of fruit-bearing trees has been sufficiently considered by the lower Court so far as this aspect is concerned. ( 16 ) HENCE the following result emerges: (i) In case of non-irrigated or Jarayat lands there will be 2595 increase in the compensation awarded by the lower Court. (ii) In case of irrigated or Bagayat lands with fruit-bearing trees the portion of the lands occupied by the fruit-bearing trees will have to be deducted from the total area. (iii) After such deduction the compensation for the remaining lands will be increased by 25%. (iv) Then the value of the fruit-bearing trees as awarded by the lower Court will be added in the aforesaid cases of Bagayat lands. (v) An amount of Rs. 3 0 will be added for the loss of each well and an amount of Rs. 3 0 will be added in case of loss of each engine room but in First Appeal No. 826/83 filed by the original claimant only Rs. 1 0 will have to be added for the loss of the incomplete well. (vi) Solatium at the rate of 15% will have to be awarded on the total amount. 3 0 will be added in case of loss of each engine room but in First Appeal No. 826/83 filed by the original claimant only Rs. 1 0 will have to be added for the loss of the incomplete well. (vi) Solatium at the rate of 15% will have to be awarded on the total amount. (vii) The resulting amount will bear an interest at the rate of 4 1/2 per cent per annum from the date of taking possession till payment. 17 In the result: (A) First Appeals No. 994/82 to 1008/82 and First Appeal No. 1015/82 filed by the State of Gujarat are dismissed with costs. Cross-objections filed in First Appeals No. 994/82 998 1007 and 1008 are allowed and additional compensation at the rate shown in the table below is ordered to be awarded to the respondents. (B) First Appeals No. 824/83 825 826 and 827 filed by the original claimants are allowed and additional compensation at the rate shown in the table below is awarded with proportionate costs. I Appeals filed by State 25% Well Engine Room Total Addl. Compensation to respondents who have filed cross-objections 1 R. A. No. 994/82 Rs. 7 0 7 70 2 F. A. No. 998/82 Rs. 21 780 21 780 3 F. A. No. 1007/82 Rs. 4 600 + 3 0 -7 600 4 F. A. No. 1008/82 Rs. 3 330 + 3 0 -6 330 II Appeals filed by org. claimants 25% Addl. Comp. to well/rngine Room Total org. claimants-appellants. 1 F. A. No. 824/83 Rs. 34 920 + 3000 + 3000 -40 820 2 F. A. No. 825/83 Rs. 62 600 + 3000 + 3000 -68 600 3 F. A. No. 826/83 Rs. 50 630 + 1000 -51 630 4 F. A. No. 827/83 Rs. 34 100 + 3000 -37 100 (C) Solatium at the rate of 15% will be awarded on the amount mentioned in the table. Interest at the rate of 4 1/2 per cent per annum will also be paid to the appellants in First Appeals No. 824/83 825 826 and 827/83 and also to the respondents in First Appeals No. 994 998 1007 and 1006/82 from the date of taking possession till payment. Order accordingly. .