Heard Mr. DK Biswas, learned counsel for the claimant as well as Mr. TD Majumder, learned counsel for the LA Collector. 2. Since the two appeals arise out of the same judgment and involve common discussions of facts and question of law, they are disposed of together. 3. The land of Shri Subhash Ranjan Roy, claimant measuring 6.231 acres situated in Mouza Ishanpur, Sadar Sub Division pertaining to CS Plot Nos 391/P, 392/P,394/Punder Khatian Nos 515 and 58 was acquired by the Govt of Tripura vide notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, the Act) on 28.8.89. Subsequent notification under section 6 of the Act was made on 29.1.90. The total area of land acquired is about 2100 sq mtrs. The compensation awarded by the LA Collector and the LA Judge under 3 heads is as follows: :Particulars Compensation awarded by Compensation awarded by LA Collector LA Judge. Land Rs. 50,000 per kani Rs. 55,000 per kani Building Rs. 29,988 Rs. 90,000 Trees and plants Rs. 20,473 Rs. 61,419 Apart from the above compensation, the learned LA Judge has awarded an additional amount of 12% per annum on the market value as assessed by the Court with effect from the date of publication of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act till the date of Award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector or the date of taking over possession of the acquired land, whichever is earlier. Further, a solatium @ 30% per annum of the market value as determined by the lower Court and 9% interest per annum from the date of taking over possession of the acquired land for one year and thereafter @ 15% per annum on the enhanced amount has been awarded by the learned LA Judge. Both the claimants and the LA Collector have grievance against the Award passed by the learned LA Judge. 4. As regards the amount of compensation for the land acquired and the 3 houses standing on the land, we are satisfied that on the basis of the evidence adduced in the case, the view taken by the learned LA Judge is not assailable. As noted by the learned LA Judge in the judgment this very land was purchased h by the claimant in the year 1982 @ Rs. 23,000/- per kani. As noted by the learned LA Judge in the judgment this very land was purchased h by the claimant in the year 1982 @ Rs. 23,000/- per kani. An exemplar sale deed dated 5.9.88 has been taken into consideration by the learned LA Judge. Through this sale deed, the land was purchased @ Rs. 50,000 per kani and the transaction took place in the year 1988 while the acquisition in the instant case was made is the year 1990. Keeping in view the lapse of two years between the sale deed registered in the year 1988 and the instant acquisition, the award of compensation by the learned LA Judge @ Rs. 55,000/- per kani appears to be Just and appropriate. Likewise, in view of the evidence brought on the record, the compensation only Rs. 90,000 per pacca houses situated in the disputed land appears to be just and reasonable compensation as against the award of Rs. 29,988 by the LA Collector. Hence, the award of LA Collector with regard to the compensation for the land and building does not call for interference. 5. As regards the compensation to be payable towards the trees, the learned counsel for the claimant argued that as per allegations of the claimant, as found in the written statement and fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the LA Collector the number and nature of the trees as claimed by the claimant-appellant were standing on the acquired land on the date of acquisition. The LA Collector awarded compensation of Rs. 20,473 under this head, the LA Judge enhanced it into 3 times ie Rs. 61,419. The learned counsel for the claimant vehemently argued that the compensation awarded by both the LA Collector and the LA Judge is highly inadequate/As per the claim of the claimant-appellant, a sum of Rs. 49 lakhs should be awarded to the claimants under this head. The details of trees put forward by the claimant voiced by the learned counsel for the claimant d are as tinder: “Name Number Yearly Rate Coconut 85 100 pc 5 per pc Bettle nut 259 3kg 57 per kg Papaya 11 50 pc 5 per pc Lemon 11 125 pc 0.50 per pc Guava 3 500pc Banana 85 140pc Iperpc Multiplier Calculation Amount 20 85x100x5x20 8,50,000 12 259x3x57x12 531468 1 11x50x5x1 2,750 12 11x125x0.50x12 8,250 12 3x500x0.20x12 3,600 10 85x140x1x10 1,19,000” 6. The learned counsel for the claimant relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in State of Madras vs. Rev Brother Joseph reported in AIR 1973 SC 2463 , in Chaturbhuj Pande vs. Collector, Raigarh reported in AIR 69 SC 255 and of Mysore High Court in the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Railways, Mangalore vs. Narayana Bhat reported in AIR 1973 Mysore 25. In State of Madras vs. Rev. Brother Joseph (supra), the Supreme Court observed that fruit bearing trees are likely to yield for more than 20 years, capitalisation of the net in some at 20 years purchase is not improper. In Chaturbhuj Pandey vs. Collector, Raigarh (supra), it was observed by the Supreme Court that the value of trees does not fall under section 23 of the Act. The land includes trees standing thereon which are component parts of the land. The value of trees is ascertained only for determining the market Value of land sought to be acquired. On value of the land as determined, the Court is bound to allow 15 percent allowance provided by section 23 (2) of the Act. In the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Railways, Mangalore vs. Narayana Bhat (supra), the Division Bench of the Mysore High Court laid down guidelines about capitali­sation method. There, the subject matter of acquisition was a garden comprising battle nut trees. As seen above, the claimant has been awarded compensation for the land acquired. In a recent case reported in AIR 1996 SC 106 (State of Haryana vs. Gurcharan Singh) wherein the Supreme Court has held as under: “.... It is settled law that the Collector or the Court who determines the compen­sation for the land as well as fruit bearing trees cannot determine them separately. The compensation is to the value of the acquired land. The market value is determined on the basis of the yield. Then, necessarily applying suitable multiplier, the compensation need to be awarded. Under no circumstances the Court should allow the compensation on the basis of the nature of the land as well as fruit bearing trees. In other words, market value of the land is determined twice over and one of the basis of the value of the land and again on the basis of the yield got from the fruit bearing trees. In other words, market value of the land is determined twice over and one of the basis of the value of the land and again on the basis of the yield got from the fruit bearing trees. The definition of the land includes the benefits to arise from the land as defined in section 3 (a) of the Act. After compensation is determined on the basis of the value of the land from the income applying suitable multiplier, then the trees would be valued only a fire wood and necessary compensation would be given.” In view of the recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court, the compensation for the land as well as fruit bearing trees cannot be determined separately. The compensation is to the value of the land acquired. Under no circumstances, the Court shall allow compensation on the basis of the nature of the land as well as fruit bearing trees. After compensation is determined on the basis of the value of the land, then trees would be valued only as firewood and necessary compensation would be given. In the instant case, as transpired above, the land was purchased by the claimant in the year 1982, the acquisition was made in the year 1990. The area of the land under acquisition is only 2100 sq mts only. In view of these facts, the award of compensation of Rs. 20,473/- by the LA Collector for trees and plants cannot be said to be inadequate. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court, the learned LA Judge was not justified in enhancing the compensation under the head trees and plants to a sum .of Rs. 61,419 Consequently, the award of the learned LA Judge under this head is not sustainable and has to be set aside. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the First Appeal No. 106 of 1998 (Subhash Ranjan Roy vs. The Land Acquisition Collector & another) has no merit and as such it is hereby dismissed. The First Appeal No. 134 of 1998 (Land Acquisition Collector, West Tripura District vs. Subhash Ranjan Roy & others) is partly allowed. The compensation of Rs. 61,419 awarded by the learned LA Judge is modified to Rs. 20,473 only. The Award of the LA Judge in respect of compensation paid for the land and building acquired and other consequential benefits is hereby affirmed. Costs on parties.