JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. (Oral) This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is directed against the judgment and award dated 29.05.2000, passed by Additional District Judge, Dehradun, whereby in the land acquisition reference case Nos. 129 of 1990 and 171 of 1990, the annual value of the orchard has been fixed Rs. 49,893/- and Rs. 41,458/- respectively and applied the multiplier of fifteen on the said amounts. Cost of trees, which were standing on the boundary of the orchard, was also awarded in each case. Total Rs. 7,49,693/- and Rs. 6,24,956/- respectively were awarded to the claimant along with 30% solatium under Section 23(2)(a), 9% interest upto the date of possession and 15% thereafter under Section 28 of the said Act in each cases. 2. Against the impugned award dated 29-5-2000, initially two appeals- F.A. No. 46 of 2001 (old No. 618 of 2000) and F.A. No. 161 of 2001 (Old No. 606 of 2000) were filed. This court having heard both the parties decided these appeals by the judgment and order dated 5-8-2005, wherein Chunni Lal was respondent. After decision of the appeals, review application No. 609/2009 was filed by the legal heirs of Chunni Lal respondent No.2 in F.A. No. 161/2001, on the ground that while this court decided the appeals, Chunni Lal had died and the decree has been passed against dead person. On this ground this court has allowed the review application filed by legal heirs of Chunni Lal on 9-4-2010 and F.A. No. 161/2001 was restored to its original number and the appeal is heard by this court. The legal heirs of respondent No.2 have also been heard. In another appeal No. 46/2001, review application No. 260/2010 along with delay condonation was filed and the review application as well as delay condonation applications were dismissed without reference to Court for not removing the defect pursuant to this court’s order dated 5.1.2012 and the said appeal was not restored to its original number. 3. Before dealing with the contention of the rival parties, it will be relevant to deal with necessary facts of the case under the appeal before me. 4. The admitted facts are that the State proposed to acquire the land for purposes of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation ( for short the O.N.G.C.). 3. Before dealing with the contention of the rival parties, it will be relevant to deal with necessary facts of the case under the appeal before me. 4. The admitted facts are that the State proposed to acquire the land for purposes of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation ( for short the O.N.G.C.). In the case giving rise to Land Acquisition Reference No. 129 of 1990, land measuring 0.45 acre of Khasra No. 52 and 0.37 acre of Khasra No. 54 of village Kaulagarh, Central Doon, Dehradun was proposed to be acquired vide Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, which was published on 5.7.1985 followed by Notification under Section 6(1) of the Act issued on 5-9-1986. The possession was taken and the claimant filed objection before the S.L.A.O. In his objection dated 3.6.1988, the claimant Chunni Lal stated that he is owner/Bhumidhar of Khasra No. 52 area 0.45 acre and Khasra No. 54 area 0.37 acre of Mauja Kaulagarh and the land was acquired by the Collector. It was also stated that the S.L.A.O. while passing the award ignored the potential value and facilities etc. of the land acquired and the market value was determined at low rate. He further stated that the market value of the acquired land in respect of the orchard should have been determined by applying multiplier of 20 instead of 8. Ultimately, the S.L.A.O. passed the award on 25.4.1988. It was observed by him in the award that in the land of Khasra No. 52, area 0.45 acre and Khasra No. 54, area 0.37 acre, total area 0.82, there existed fruit bearing trees (orchard), therefore, the compensation for the said land was determined by calculating the annual income from the yield and by applying multiplier of 8. Aggrieved by the award passed by the S.L.A.O. the L.A. Reference Case No. 129 of 1990, Chunni Lal Vs. Collector and another was preferred before the Additional District Judge, Dehradun. 5. Similarly, on the basis of the objection preferred by the claimant Chunni Lal, L.A. Reference No. 171 of 1990 was registered before the Reference Court in respect of 0.81 acre of land of Khasra No. 51 and 53 of the aforesaid village. Over this land also, there existed orchard. The S.L.A.O. awarded compensation by determining the market value on the basis of annual income from the yield and by applying multiplier of 8. Over this land also, there existed orchard. The S.L.A.O. awarded compensation by determining the market value on the basis of annual income from the yield and by applying multiplier of 8. Ultimately the S.L.A.O. passed the award dated 2.12.1989. Aggrieved by the award of the S.L.A.O. the L.A. Reference No. 171 of 1990 was registered before the Additional District Judge, Dehradun. 6. The Collector/State as well as the O.N.G.C. filed its objection before the Reference Court and asserted that the multiplier of 8 has been rightly applied by the S.L.A.O. for determining the compensation on the basis of annual income from the yield in respect of the land bearing orchard thereon. Both the reference were contested by the State of U.P. as well as O.N.G.C. It has been stated on behalf of the State and O.N.G.C. that the acquired land had no building potentiality and the compensation determined by the S.L.A.O. on the basis of annual yield of the orchard by adopting the multiplier of 8 was in accordance with law and that the contention of the claimant that multiplier of 20 ought to have been adopted is not tenable. The O.N.G.C. further stated in its written statement that the land is far away from the land in question detailed in the exemplar. 7. In order to contest the references, the claimant filed Photostat copy of the valuation report about fruit bearing trees dated 8.1.1988 prepared by the District Horticulture Officer per list 24-C as well as examined Raj Kumar as P.W.1 and Har Prasad as P.W.2. The O.Ps. filed Photostat copy of sale deed dated 8-7-1988 and sale-deed dated 5.6.1985 and examined Trilok Chand in oral evidence in L.A. Reference No. 129 of 1990. Similarly, in the order reference, the aforesaid witnesses were examined and in documentary evidence, valuation report of the District Horticulture Officer Dehradun per list 14-C/1 and guide map issued by Survey of India were filed. 8. In the reference case No. 129 of 1990 the following issues were framed by the learned Reference Court- 1- Whether the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate? If so, what is the correct amount of compensation?. 2- To what relief, if any, is the petitioner entitled?. 9. In L.A. Reference No. 171 of 1990, the following issues were framed- 1- Whether the amount of compensation awarded by Special Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate?. If so, what is the correct amount of compensation?. 2- To what relief, if any, is the petitioner entitled?. 9. In L.A. Reference No. 171 of 1990, the following issues were framed- 1- Whether the amount of compensation awarded by Special Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate?. If so, what is the adequate amount of compensation?. 2- Whether the claimant is entitled to any enhanced compensation?. 3- To what relief, if any, is the claimant entitled?. 10. The learned Reference Court after hearing both the parties and considering the evidence on record found that there were Litchi, Mango, lemon, guava and some other trees over the acquired land. It is pertinent to mention that this fact is not in dispute that there existed fruit bearing trees over the land in question. 11. The Reference Court decided both the references by a common judgment and award. Issue No.1 of L.A. Reference No. 129 of 1990 and issue Nos. 1 and 2 of L.A. Reference No. 171 of 1990 were taken up together. The claimant contended that for determining the compensation, the annual income from the yield of fruit bearing trees should have been multiplied by 20 instead of 8. Ultimately, both the references were allowed and the award passed by the S.L.A.O. was modified to the extent that multiplier of 15 instead of 8 was made the basis in view of Apex Court Judgments referred to in the judgment. 12. The only question for determination before me is whether the multiplier used by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is just and proper and whether the multiplier of 15 applied by the learned Reference Court is correct to assess the just and proper compensation in respect of the fruit bearing trees/orchard. 13. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material available on record. 14. The learned Senior Advocate Sri J.P. Joshi appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that the learned S.L.A.O. has adopted the correct multiplier of 8 to the market value, calculated on the basis of net yield and taking into account other factors, including risk fact and the learned Reference Court has erred in applying the multiplier of 15 when awarding compensation to respondent- claimant. He has placed on the following cases- 1- State of Haryana vs. Gurcharan Singh and another, reported in 1995 Supp.(2) SCC page 637. He has placed on the following cases- 1- State of Haryana vs. Gurcharan Singh and another, reported in 1995 Supp.(2) SCC page 637. 2- Airports Authority of India vs. Satyagopal Roy and others, reported in (2002)3 Supreme Court Cases 527. 3- Navanath and others vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2009) 14 Supreme Court Cases 490. 15. In the former two judgments- State of Haryana vs. Gurcharan Singh and another and Airports Authority of India vs. Satyagopal Roy and others, the Apex Court has held that the proper multiplier for determining compensation in respect of fruit-bearing trees would be 8 and not more than that. In the third cited case of Navanath and others vs. State of Maharashtra, it has been held that if the land is having fruit-bearing trees the market value cannot be calculated land plus cost of trees and capitalization method would be applicable. 16. In reply, learned Senior Advocate Sri V.K. Kohli, on behalf of respondent No.2 has submitted that the learned Reference Court has not committed any error of law in awarding the compensation on the basis of multiplier of 15. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case differently and age of fruit bearing trees. He has placed reliance on the following cases- 1. Special Deputy Collector,(L.A.) Telugu Ganga Project Cuddapah vs. Kallur Tasaratharamireddy and others, reported in 2003 (Suppl.) AILA and Compensation Cases page 577, wherein it has been held that the Supreme Court has already fixed the value of Cheeni trees to be calculated on the basis of the 20 years and the said method was also approved by the Division Bench in Shivarami Reddy’s case reported in 2000(2) LACC 273- Andhra Pradesh. But it was on record that the trees were 5 to 6 years old on the date of acquisition and taking into consideration that yield had already commenced and the claimants have already taken the yield for two years, the multiplier 18 was pressed into service. 2- G. Shivaram Reddy vs. Special Deputy Collector, L.A.O. Nandyal, reported in 2000(2) All India Land Acquisition & Compensation Cases, 273, wherein the Andhra Pradesh High Court following the ratio of the case Special Deputy Collector,(L.A.) Telugu Ganga Project Cuddapah vs. Kallur Tasaratharamireddy and others,(supra), has adopted the multiplier of 16, against whom SLP was filed before the Apex Court, which was dismissed. In the cited case it was observed that the market value of orchards is to be determined on the basis of kind of trees, age of trees, climatic conditions, nature of soils, maintenance etc and market value of agricultural land and orchards with fruit-bearing trees is to be fixed depending upon the age of the trees. 3- Hans Raj Setia (died) through L.Rs. vs. Land Acquisition Collector and another, reported in 2005(1) LACC paged 601, wherein relying upon the Harban’s Singh formula, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has applied the multiplier of 20 for Keenu fruit. 17. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 also submitted that in the case of Airport Authority of India (supra) cited by ONGC land was not acquired and it was left with the owners and only trees were not allowed. He further submitted that in the case of Navanath and others vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) cited by ONGC, paragraph Nos. 40,41 and 45, demolishes the contention of appellant that the multiplier cannot be more than 8, and it has been held by the Apex Court in above paras that the multiplier of 8 or 10 and even higher multiplier in certain cases is applied which is dependent on multiplicand, yield for plantation and facts and circumstances of each case. 18. In the above cited case of Navanath, the Apex Court in para-40 has observed that indisputably, valuation of agricultural land on the one hand and valuation of orchard and forest on the other would stand on different footings. Whereas in the former case, the known legal principles, particularly with reference to the exemplars will have to be applied, in the latter a different principle, namely, multiplier of eight or ten, as the case may be, on the basis of the multiplicand, namely, yield from the trees or plantation would be applicable. 19. In para-41 of the above cited judgment it has been observed that- ‘the legal principle laid down in this behalf in a catena of decisions of this Court is that the market value of the land cannot be determined both on the basis of sale instance as also on capitalization method keeping in view the fact that it had fruit-bearing trees. But, in this case, nothing has been pointed out before us that the fruit-bearing trees in large numbers were existing in the agricultural land itself and the Reference Court had valued the same land by adopting two different methods. Had such a position been existing, the Land Acquisition Officer himself and/or the horticulturist and the consulting engineer appointed on behalf of the State would not have been taken recourse thereto. They are experts in their own fields. The Land Acquisition Officer is presumed to know the legal principles governing valuation. Furthermore, as noticed hereinbefore, recourse to the determination of amount of compensation of fruit-bearing trees have been taken keeping in view the guidelines issued by the State itself.” 20. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant has contended that on the land in dispute 33 trees of Litchi, 11 trees of lemon, 9 mango trees were found and the other trees were Guava, Aadu, etc and the yield from these trees did not have much potentiality and the learned S.L.A.O was justified in applying the proper multiplier of 8. The SLAO has awarded the compensation on the basis of assessment report of District Horticulture Officer, who had assessed the yielding annual value of the orchard. 21. In para-45 of the above cited judgment, the Apex Court relying on Airports Authority case has held that on the basis of the yield from the trees by applying 8 years’ multiplier was correct. 22. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the submissions made by the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent and the cases cited on his behalf are of no help to the respondent. 23. The controversy before the Apex Court in the judgments referred by the appellant as well as the respondent was as to what would be the proper multiplier for determination of the market value of the land by the capitalization method in the case of crops as well as fruit-bearing trees. In the present appeal the compensation of the land was to be determined in respect of fruit-bearing trees. The Reference Court while determining the market value/compensation referred to three Division Bench Decisions of the Apex Court consisting of two Judges each, which were touching the matter in dispute. It was observed that in its earlier judgment AIR 1973, Supreme Court, page 2463, State of Madras vs. Rev. The Reference Court while determining the market value/compensation referred to three Division Bench Decisions of the Apex Court consisting of two Judges each, which were touching the matter in dispute. It was observed that in its earlier judgment AIR 1973, Supreme Court, page 2463, State of Madras vs. Rev. Brother Joseph, the Supreme Court held multiplier of twenty to be just and proper. In a subsequent decision reported in AIR 1991, Supreme Court, page 2027, Kooyappathodi M. Ayish Umma vs. State of Kerala, multiplier of fifteen was held to be appropriate. In a later judgment State of Haryana vs. Gurcharan Singh, reported in 1995, Supp. (2) SCC page 637, the multiplier of eight was stated as appropriate. It was observed by the Reference Court that in the subsequent decision in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Gurcharan Singh, the earlier judgments of Apex Court were never discussed. Hence the Reference Court applied the multiplier of 15 in the facts and circumstances of the case on the basis of two Judge Bench decision given earlier. 24. It is significant to mention here that now the controversy has been decided by the Three Judges Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Airports Authority of India (supra) relied upon by the appellant, in which all the three earlier decisions of the Apex Court referred to by the Reference Court, namely, State of Madras vs. Rev. Brother Joseph reported in (1973) 2 SCC 504 , Special Land Acquisition Officer, Malaprabha Dam Project Vs. Madivilappa Basalingappa Melavanki (1995) 5 SCC page 670 and State of Haryana Vs. Gurcharan Singh (supra) were discussed and the Apex Court following the case of Gurcharan Singh observed in para 14 that- ‘Hence, in our view, there was no reason for the High Court not to follow the decision rendered by this Court in Gurcharan Singh case and determine the compensation payable to the respondents on the basis of the yield from the trees by applying 8 years’ multiplier. In this view of the matter, in our view, the High Court committed error apparent in awarding compensation adopting the multiplier of 18.’ 25. In this view of the matter, in our view, the High Court committed error apparent in awarding compensation adopting the multiplier of 18.’ 25. Therefore, following the ratio of Gurcharan Singh (supra) as well as Airports Authority of India case (supra), in the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is held that multiplier of eight is just and proper as adopted by SLAO, instead of fifteen, as held by the Reference Court in the instant case, since the SLAO had passed the award in accordance with the annual yield assessed by the District Horticulture Officer, who is an expert in its field. 26. In view of foregoing discussions, F.A. No. 161 of 2001 directed against the L.A. Reference Case No. 171 of 1990, is allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 29-5-2000 passed by Additional District Judge, Dehradun with respect of L.A. Reference Case No. 171 of 1990, is set aside and the finding under the award, passed by SLAO with regard to the land acquired under L.A. Reference Case No. 171/1990 is upheld. No order as to costs.