STATE OF HARYANA versus GURCHARAN SINGH AND ANR. ETC.

Citation: [1995] 1 S.C.R. 408 · Decided: 18-01-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF HARYANA 
v. 
4--
GURCHARAN SINGH AND ANR. ETC. 
... .
JANUARY 18, 1995 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.) 
Land Acquisition Act, 189~Sections 4(1) & 23(1)-Acquisition of 
' 
·T-
land with frnit bearing trees-Determination of compensation-Method-
Compensation for land as well as fruit bearing trees cannot be determined 
c separately--8 years multiplier shall be appropriate multiplier. 
The land situated in Panchkula was acquired by a notification 
published u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition 
Collector awarded the market value to the land. In addition, he also 
D 
awarded compensation to the fruit bearing trees. On reference, award of 
>-
the Collector was confirmed. On appeal, the High Court by confirming the 
market value of the land, enhanced the compensation for the fruit bearing 
trees by 60% of what was awarded by the Collector. Hence this Appeal. 
The appellant State contended that the High Court committed grave 
E error of law in upholding the determination of the compensation both to 
the land as well as fruit bearing trees and also enhancing the market value 
of the fruit bearing trees. 
The respondent submitted that considering the rise in price index, 
:rl-
the High Court was right in increasing the compensation to the fruit 
F bearing trees by 60% 
AllOwing the appeals, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. It is settled law that the Collector or the court who 
G 
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 compen-
sation on the basis of the nature of the land as well as fruit bearing trees. 
H In other words, market value of the land is determined twice over; once on 
408 
STATEOFHARYANAv. G.SINGH 
409 
the basis of the value of the land and again on the basis of the .yield got A 
from the fruit bearing trees. The definition of the land includes the benefits 
which accrue from the land as defined in s.3(a) of the Act. After compen-
sation is determined on the basis of the value of the land from the income 
applying suitable multiplier, then the trees would be valued only as fire· 
wood and necessary compensation would be given. (410-G-H, 411-AJ 
1.2. When the market value is determined on the basis of the yield 
from the trees or plantation, 8 years multiplier shall be appropriate 
multiplier. (411-CJ 
B 
1.3. Though the Collector had committed palpable error of law in C 
separately awarding the compensation to the land as well as fruit bearing 
trees it is an offer which cannot be disturbed because of section S of the 
Land Acquisition Act. The· rate of compensation should have less than 
what the Collector had awarded, the Court cannot reduce the amount to 
than the amount offered by the Collector. The Collector, civil court and 
the High Court should have applied 8 years multiplier and determined the D 
compensation. They awarded much more than what the claimant would 
justly and fairly be entitled to Therefore, further enhancement of 60% by 
the High Court on the basis of the Price Index was illegal. [411-E-F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4974-76 E 
of 1985 Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.5.81 of the Punjab & 
Haryana High Court in R.FA. Nos. 1137, 1138 and 1354 of 1979. 
Ms. Suruchi Agarwal and Ms. Indu Malhotra for the Appellant. 
S.K. Bagga and Mrs. Tanuj Bagga for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
F 
This appeal arises from the judgment and decree of the High Court 
G 
of Punjab & . Haryana in RSA No .. 1137 of 1970 and batch dated May 21, 
1981. An extent of 20 acres 38 cents was notified and published for 
acquisit~on in the State Gazette under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 
on June 22, 1974 for residential colony. The lands are situated in 
Panchkula, near Chandigarh, as satellite town. The Land Acquisition Col-
lector (for short 'the Collector') awarded the market value in his award H 
410 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1995] 1 S.C.R. 
A dated June 25, 1976, to t_he Abadi land at the rate of Rs. 12.240 per acre 
and to the Gheir Mumkin Land @Rs. 1200 Per acre. In addition, he also 
awarded compensation to the fruit bearing trees in the respective appeals 
as follows : • 
B 
c 
R.F.A. N

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.