LexAIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA versus SATYAGOPAL ROY AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA A v. SATYAGOPAL ROY AND ORS. MARCH I5, 2002 [M.B. SHAH, S.N. VARIAVA AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] B Compensation-Award of-For cutting of trees-Determination of market value on the basis of yield from the trees-Application of multiplier of 18 years yield-Held not justified-8 years multiplier is appropriate-Aircraft C Act, 1934. Words and Phrases : "Capitalisation" and "Capitalising Rate "-Meaning of In the present case while determining the compensation for cutting of D trees of the claimants-Respondents High Court had applied multiplier of 18 years yield. In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the order of High Court was against the law laid down in *Gurucharan Singh 's case wherein it was held that under no circumstances, multiplier could be more than 8 years E when the market value is determined on the basis of the yield from the trees or plantation. Respondents-claimants contended that the case does not call for interference since the amount awarded was very small Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD : I. It is settled law that when the market value is determined on the basis of the yield from the tree or plantation, 8 years multiplier shall be the appropriate multiplier. High Court committed error in awarding compensation adopting the multiplier of 18. It should have determined the compensation payable to the respondents on th~ basis of the yield from the trees by applying 8 years' multiplier. [510-H; 511-A) *State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr., [1995] Suppl 2 SCC 637, relied on. Union of India and Anr. v. Shanti Devi and Ors., [1983] 4 SCC 542 and Special Land Acquisition Officer, Davangera v. P. Veerabhadarappa and Ors., 505 F G H 506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 2 S.C.R. , A [1984) 2 sec 120, referred to. 2. This is not a fit case for interference in this appeal, considering the small amount of compensation awarded to the claimants. [511-E] State of Madras v. Rev. Brother Joseph, Am (1973) SC 2463 and Special B Land Acquisition Officer, Ma/aprabha Dam Project, Saundatti and Ors. v. Madivalappa Basalingappa Melavanki and Ors., [1995] 5 SCC 670, relied on. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2091 of 2002. C From the Judgment and Order dated 27. 7 .2000 of the Gauhati High Court in F.A. No. 68 of 1995. Mrs. Rachna Joshi Issar and Mrs. Sangeeta Bansal for the Appellant. Rajiv Mehta for the Respondents. D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH, J. Leave granted. Appellant-Airports Authority of India has challenged the judgment E and order dated 27.7.2000 passed by the High Court of Guwahati at Agartala in First Appeal No. 68 of 1995, whereby the Court determined compensation for cutting of trees by applying the multiplier of 18 years' yield. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order is against the law laid down by this Court in State of Haryana p v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr., [1995] Suppl. 2 SCC 637 wherein this Court has held that under no circumstances, the multiplier should be more than 8 years when the market value is determined on the basis of the yield from the trees or plantation. G She has also submitted that as such the entire award of compensation to the respondent is also illegal because by Notification dated 15th March, 1979 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Tourism and Civil Aviation, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred under Section 9A ofthe Aircraft Act, 1934 (22 of 1934), respondents were directed that no building or structure should be constructed or erected or no tree should be planted on H the land specified therein which included the land belonging to the claimants. >-' I AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA v. SATYAGOPAL ROY [SHAH, J.] 507 She further pointed out that after issuance of the said Notification, A compensation was paid for cutting the trees which were existing on the land. Thereafter, similar Notification was issued on 5th January, 1988 for the same purpose and the claimants again claimed compensation for cutting of trees planted by them on the specified land. In our view, the aforesaid submission does not require any consideration as it was neither raised before the High B Court nor it was contended before the Arbitrator appointed by the Central Government. Further, this Court has issued notice confined to the question whether multiplier applied by the impugned order is justified in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.