JUDGMENT - Dr. CHANDRACHUD D.Y., J.:---These two first appeals can be conveniently dealt with together since they arise out of the same judgment and order dated 7th May ,1988 of the learned Joint Civil Judge, Sr. Dn., Wardha, in a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. First Appeal No. 121 of 1988 has been filled by the original claimants in the reference proceedings while First Appeal No. 5 of 1989 has been filed by the State against the enhancement which was granted by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Sr. Dn., Wardha. Before dealing with the two appeals, and the submissions which have been urged therein, it would be necessary to consider the office objection in F.A. No. 5 of 1989 in regard to the jurisdiction of the Court. F.A. No. 5 of 1989 was placed before the learned Single Judge of this Court on 26th June, 2002, when the office was directed to examine the question of valuation after which the matter was to be placed before the Court. The Bombay High Court (Appellate Side) Rules, 1960, as amended on 15-7-1999, provide in Rule 2 the matters which can be disposed of by a Single Judge. Rule 2-I(a)((i) provides as follows: "(a) Appeals.---(i) from original decree in suits or from adjudication in other proceedings from which appeals lie to the High Court as from original decrees, whether under the Civil Procedure Code or under any local or special Act, wherein the value of the subject-matter in dispute in the Court or before the Tribunal of the first instance does not exceed (10 lakhs) rupees and wherein the value of the subject matter still in dispute on appeal is (10 lakhs) rupees or less: provided, however, that the expression 'the value of the subject matter still in dispute on appeal' appearing in this sub-clause shall be construed to mean, where there is an appal as well as a cross appeal or cross-appeals or cross-objections, the total of the values of the subject-matters in dispute in the appeal as well as the cross-appeals or the cross-objections;". 2. In the present case, the claim for compensation before the Reference Court was in the total amount of Rs. 12,72,000/-. The Reference Court awarded a total amount of compensation quantified at Rs. 9,21,621.50 after deducting the compensation which has already been paid of Rs. 1,60,686.90. 2. In the present case, the claim for compensation before the Reference Court was in the total amount of Rs. 12,72,000/-. The Reference Court awarded a total amount of compensation quantified at Rs. 9,21,621.50 after deducting the compensation which has already been paid of Rs. 1,60,686.90. The additional compensation which had been allowed was Rs. 7,60,935/-. The State has paid the Court fee on Rs. 7,60,935/-. Insofar as the appeal by the State is concerned, the amount which remained in dispute is the additional amount of Rs. 7,60,935/- which is directed to be paid by the impugned judgment and order. That being the position, the first appeal would clearly lie before the Single Judge under the aforesaid Rule. Both the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned A.G.P., who have assisted this Court on this aspect, have fairly stated that the first appeal would have to be heard and disposed of by a Single Judge. Accordingly, both the appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The acquisition in the present case took place of lands admeasuring 13.63 acres comprised of Kh. No. 35/1 of village Mahakali in Tahsil Arvi of Wardha district. The lands were acquired for the construction of a dam. The notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 27th November, 1975 and the declaration under section 6 was published on 17th June, 1976. The Special Land Acquisition Officer made the Award on 23rd December, 1977 and granted a total compensation of Rs. 1,60,686.90. Insofar as the lands were concerned, the Special Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation on the basis of the market value computed at Rs. 2,250/- per acre. However, certain deductions were made therefrom by the Award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Thereafter, on a reference being made under section 18 of the Act, the learned Joint Civil Judge, Sr. Dn., by the impugned judgment and order dated 7th May, 1988 awarded compensation to the following extent: For land ... Rs. 45,562.50 For Trees ... Rs. 8,62,681.00 For Well ... 5,000.00 For Bunds etc. ... Rs. 8,378.00 -------------------- Total Rs. 9,21,621.00 Since the amount of Rs. 1,60,686.90 had already been paid as compensation, the balance of the compensation to which the claimants were held to be entitled was Rs. 7,60,935.00. In addition, solatium was granted at the rate of 30%. Rs. 45,562.50 For Trees ... Rs. 8,62,681.00 For Well ... 5,000.00 For Bunds etc. ... Rs. 8,378.00 -------------------- Total Rs. 9,21,621.00 Since the amount of Rs. 1,60,686.90 had already been paid as compensation, the balance of the compensation to which the claimants were held to be entitled was Rs. 7,60,935.00. In addition, solatium was granted at the rate of 30%. Interest has also been awarded. As already noted above, a total amount of compensation of Rs. 8,62,681/- has been awarded for the acquisition of trees. This compensation is computed as follows: Orange trees ... Rs. 3,53,760.00 Lemon trees ... Rs. 4,90,560.00 Grafted mango trees ... Rs. 17,554.00 other mango trees ... Rs. 807.00 -------------------- Total Rs. 8,62,681.00 4. Before dealing with the merits of the first appeal filed by the original claimants, it would be necessary to consider the appeal filed by the State against the judgment and order of the Reference Court. The point which has been canvassed in the appeal filed by the State can be divided into two heads, these being (i) the correctness of the order of the Reference Court insofar as the compensation was awarded separately for the lands and for the fruit bearing trees, and (ii) the correctness of the enhancement which was granted by the Reference Court in respect of the fruit bearing trees. The submissions which have been urged in regard to the second of the aforesaid aspects can be considered subsequently. Insofar as the first aspect is concerned, the submission which was urged by the learned A.G.P. was that when land is acquired together with fruit bearing trees, compensation cannot be determined in respect of the land and fruit bearing trees as if they were separate units. There is merit in the contention which has been urged on behalf of the State. In the recent judgement of the Supreme Court in (Airports Authority of India v. Satyagopal Roy)1, A.I.R. 2002 S.C. 1423, a Bench of three learned Judges of Supreme Court held that in evaluating the market value of the acquired property, where it consists of land and fruit bearing trees standing thereon, the value of both is to be determined not as separate units but as one unit. Therefore, it would be open to the Land Acquisition Officer or the Court, either to assess the land with all its advantages and fix the market value thereof on the basis of comparable sale instances. However, where comparable sale instances are not available and where there is reliable and acceptable evidence on record of the annual income, market value can be assessed and determined on the basis of net annual income multiplied by an appropriate multiplier for its capitalization. In the case of fruit bearing trees the net yield is to be taken into consideration, that is to say, by deducting expenses incurred for getting the yield. However, it is impermissible to grant compensation in respect of the land and the trees as if they themselves were the separate units. This principle has also been followed and applied in the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in (State of Haryana v. Gurucharan Singh)2, A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 106. The Supreme Court there held that under no circumstances can the Court grant compensation on the basis of the nature of land as well as for the fruit bearing trees. In view of these decisions of the Supreme Court, the Reference Court was clearly in error in computing the compensation payable in respect of the land separately from the compensation payable in respect of the fruit bearing trees. The Reference Court has determined the compensation payable in respect of the land at Rs. 45,562/-. In view of the decisions of the Supreme Court noted herein above, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants submitted that the claimants would rest their case for enhancement on the basis of the net yield of the fruit bearing trees and would sick to sustain the judgment of the Reference Court insofar as the compensation awarded for the trees is concerned. In that view of the matter, the enhancement in compensation which has been granted by the Reference Court in respect of the land would have to be quashed and set aside. The Reference Court has granted a total compensation of Rs. 45,562/- in respect of the land. In that view of the matter, the enhancement in compensation which has been granted by the Reference Court in respect of the land would have to be quashed and set aside. The Reference Court has granted a total compensation of Rs. 45,562/- in respect of the land. Equally, it would be necessary to give to the claimants the benefit of the compensation which was granted in respect of the land by the Award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer since the award constitutes an offer made by the State to the person whose lands are acquired. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had granted an amount of Rs. 25,442/- as costs of the land after making certain deductions. The respondent-claimants in the appeal filed by the State will be entitled to retain the amount which was awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, as aforesaid. 5. Insofar as the question of the payment of compensation in respect of fruit bearing trees is concerned, the rival submissions can now be considered. In considering these submissions, it would be necessary at the outset to have regard to the appal preferred by the State against the manner in which the yield from the fruit bearing trees has been computed. The learned Joint Civil Judge, Sr. Dn., while taking into account the net yield from the fruit bearing trees relied on the evidence of an expert, A.W. 1 who had worked as Director of Agriculture in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The expert's evidence will be considered in some detail hereinafter insofar as it relates to the average yield of the fruit bearing trees and the price which could be expected to be realized therefrom. The learned A.G.P., however, emphasized in his submissions that the error which had occurred in the judgment of the Reference Court is in assuming on the basis of a rate of interest of 5% per annum, with the capitalization at the rate of 15 years' purchase. The learned A.G.P. submitted that in no event could the number of years' purchase for the purpose of capitalization be accepted at 15 years, having regard to the judgments of the Supreme Court. In considering this submission, it would be necessary to advert to the judgment of the Supreme Court in (Special Land Acquisition Officer, Devannagere v. P. Veerabhadrappa)3, A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 774, Mr. In considering this submission, it would be necessary to advert to the judgment of the Supreme Court in (Special Land Acquisition Officer, Devannagere v. P. Veerabhadrappa)3, A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 774, Mr. Justice A.P. Sen speaking for the Bench of two learned Judges of Supreme Court held, while dealing with an acquisition which took place in the year 1971-72, that a person investing his capital in agricultural lands would ordinarily expect 2 to 3% 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". The judgment in P. Veeerabharappa was in relation to agricultural land. The question as regards would be, what should be the proper multiplier to be applied in the case of fruit bearing trees, has been considered by two learned Judges of Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh, A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 106. The Supreme Court held that under no circumstances can the multiplier, for the purpose of determining the compensation in respect of fruit bearing trees, exceed eight years, as it is a settled principle of law, emerging from a catena of decisions that when the market value is determined on the basis of yield from trees or plants, the appropriate multiplier is eight years. This principle has been reiterated in the recent judgment of three learned Judges of the Supreme Court in Airports Authority of India v. Satyagopal Roy, A.I.R. 2002 S.C. 1423, where the principle enunciated in the case of Gurcharan Singh was followed. The High Court had in that case adopted the multiplier of 18 years for calculating the compensation in respect of fruit bearing trees. The Supreme Court held that there was no reason for the High court not to follow the principle in Gurcharan Singh's case and apply a multiplier of eight years, as laid down in the previous judgment of the Court. Having regard to these decisions of the Supreme Court, I am of the view that the learned Joint Civil Judge, Sr.Dn., was clearly in error in adopting a multiplier of 15 years for the purpose of arriving at the compensation for fruit bearing trees. In my view, the compensation that is payable would have to be recomputed on the basis of a multiplier of eight years. In my view, the compensation that is payable would have to be recomputed on the basis of a multiplier of eight years. There is merit in the submission of the learned A.G.P. 6. While determining the compensation which is payable in respect of the fruit bearing trees, it would be necessary at the outset to advert to the admitted position on the record. In the lands that were acquired, there were 480 orange trees and 730 lemon trees. The learned Counsel for the original claimants has drawn the attention of the Court to the evidence of Premshankar Parasai (A.W. 1), who is an expert, who deposed on behalf of the claimants. The expert had been a Director of Agriculture in the State of Madhya Pradesh and had served as Horticulture specialist with the Government of India. Having regard to his educational qualification and experience, the evidence of the expert could safely be relied upon in this case. In the course of his cross-examination, the expert stated that he had calculated orange production at the rate of 1000 fruit per tree and the production of lemon trees at the rate of 2,000 fruit per tree per year. The expert stated that he had taken the cost of each orange fruit to be ten paise and of the lemon fruit at five paise per fruit. On this basis, the computation of compensation that would be payable to the claimants would be as follows: Orange trees--- 1000 fruit per tree x 0.10 paise Per fruit = Rs. 100/- Less 20% cultivation expenses = Rs. 80.00 Adopting a multiplier of 8---the total capitalized income would be Rs. 640.00 Rs. 640.00 x 480 trees of yield = total compensation of Rs. 03,07,200.00 Lemon trees---2000 fruits x 0.05 per fruit = Rs. 100/- Less 20% cultivation expenses = Rs. 80.00 Adopting a multiplier of 8, the capitalized income per tree would be Rs. 80 x 8 = Rs. 640.00 For 730 trees, the compensation payable would be Rs. 04,47,200/-. The Reference Court has, as already noted earlier, had awarded total amount of Rs. 3,53,760/- for the orange trees and Rs. 4,90,560/- for the lemon trees. I am of the view that the compensation which would be payable in respect of the orange trees would be Rs. 03,07,200/- and Rs. 04,47,200/- for the lemon trees. 7. 04,47,200/-. The Reference Court has, as already noted earlier, had awarded total amount of Rs. 3,53,760/- for the orange trees and Rs. 4,90,560/- for the lemon trees. I am of the view that the compensation which would be payable in respect of the orange trees would be Rs. 03,07,200/- and Rs. 04,47,200/- for the lemon trees. 7. The Reference Court has also awarded compensation for the grafted mango trees in the total amount of Rs. 17,554/- and for other mango trees Rs. 807/-. This part of the Award of the Reference Court does not call for any interference. The Reference Court had granted an amount of Rs. 5,000/- in respect of the well. Now it is a well settled principle of law that no separate compensation can be granted in respect of the irrigation facility. However, having regard to the meagre compensation of Rs. 5,000/-, which has been awarded, I consider it inappropriate to interfere with that part of the Award. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case narrated above, the compensation which has been awarded by the Reference Court to the extent of Rs. 45,562.50/- in respect of the land is quashed and set aside. The original claimants shall be entitled to compensation in the total compensation of Rs. 25,442/- only in respect of the land which was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Insofar as the fruit bearing trees are concerned, there has been some modification in the amount of compensation which has been computed by this Court by the present judgment in accordance with the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court. The compensation which has been granted in respect of orange trees and lemon trees has been scaled down as noted above. However, regard will have to be had to the fact that the first appeal by the claimants was admitted in the year 1988 and the first appeal of the State was admitted in the year 1989. The learned Counsel for the claimants has stated that since there was no stay, the compensation which has been deposited, has already been withdrawn. The reduction which has been made in the amount of the compensation granted, by the order of this Court is not very substantial. The learned Counsel for the claimants has stated that since there was no stay, the compensation which has been deposited, has already been withdrawn. The reduction which has been made in the amount of the compensation granted, by the order of this Court is not very substantial. In the circumstances, I am of the view that it would be inappropriate to direct that the compensation which has now been withdrawn by the claimants during the pendency of the appeals be refunded in part to the extent to which there has been a reduction under the orders of this Court. In the recent judgment of Supreme Court in Airports Authority of India v. Satyagopal Roy (supra), the Supreme Court had similarly declined to interfere having regard to the extent of the land acquired and the compensation under acquisition involved. In the circumstances, both the first appeals by the State and by the original claimants can be disposed of without any further direction. The learned Counsel for the original claimants states that under the judgment and order of the Reference Court, the claimants have been granted interest only on the amount of compensation that has been enhanced by the Reference Court. Having regard to the fact that this Court has directed that the compensation which has been withdrawn by the claimants should not be refunded, the claimants in fairness have given up their claim of interest over and above what has been awarded by the Reference Court. In view of the fair statement, which has been made by the claimants and which has been duly recorded, nothing further remains to be directed in these first appeals. Both the first appeals shall stand accordingly disposed of. Order accordingly. -----