STATE OF MADRAS versus REV. BROTHER JOSEPH

Citation: [1974] 1 S.C.R. 309 · Decided: 08-08-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KUTTYIL KURIEN MATHEW · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H. 
STATE OF MADRAS 
v. 
REV. BROTHER JOSEPH 
August 8, 1973 
[K. K. MATHEW AND M. H. BEG, JJ.] 
309' 
Laud acquisition-Compensation for fruit bearing trees-Method of -fixing. 
The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation for certain land acquired' 
and the method adopted by him for valuing coconut and orange topes 
was 
to 
capitalise the net income from those tapes at 20 years' purchase. 
On reference, 
the Subordinate judge, though he increased the estimated yie1d from the 
trees, 
accepted that the capitalisation should be .at 20 years purchase. 
On appeal, the 
High Court also held that the method of cavi~alisation was a fair 
method for 
arriYing at the market value. 
Dismissing the appeal by the State to this Court. 
HELD : The approved method for valuing orchards is to capitalise their net 
income at a number of years· plirchase which has· to be fixed with reference to. 
the nature of trees and other' circumstances. [310 G] 
In the present case, the Land Acquisition Oftlcer found that all the fruit bear-
in£ trees would .Yield for" more than 20 years, and tlicreforc, the method of capi-
talisation was a fair method. 
[311 A-BJ 
Konipalli Nageslzwara Rao &: Others v. Special Deputy Collector, Land Ac..-
quisition, A.I.R. 1926 Madras 945 (2) and Elias M. Coben v. Secv. of State. 43' 
Ind Cas 17(2) : A.LR. 1918 Pat. 625, approved. 
· Shunmuea Velayuda Mudali•r and Others v. Collector of Taniore, 
A.I.R .. 
1926 Madras 945, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 1468-69 of 
1967. 
From the Judgment and Decree dated the 10th April, 1962 of the 
High Court of Madras in Appeal Suit Nos. 63 and 78 of 1959. 
A. V. Rangam and A. Subhashini, for the appellant. 
V. M. Tarkunde and Naunit Lal, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
MATHEW, J. These two appeals, 
by certificate 
are directed 
against the judgment and decree of the High Court or' Madras in A.S. 
Nos. 63 and 78 of 1959 dated April 10, 1962. 
The appellant, the Government of Maclr~.s, acquired 9 acres and 
86 c~nrs _of "land in Tirunelveli District as it was needed for reserve 
area m Block III of Manimuthar Project. 
The notification under s. 
4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on Macch 7, 1956. 
. 
The area of the land with which we are concerned in this appeat 
is one acre and '59 cents comprised of 3 topes, 
of coconuts and 
oranges. 
. The Land Acquisition ~llice!, by his awaql, gave a total compen-
sa!Io~ of Rs. 28,?72-15-6 mclus1ve of solatium. The method adopted 
by h_1m for valumg. coconut and orange topes was to capitalize the 
net mcome from these topes at 20 years' purchase. 
310 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1974 j 1 S.C.R. 
Dissatisfied with the award, the respondent moved for reference 
under s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the case wa, referred to 
the Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli. 
The learned Subordinate Judge increased the estimated yield from 
the coconut and orange trees as well as the price of the yield but 
capitalized the net income at 20 years' purchase. 
Against this deci· 
sion, the State of Madras filed As. No. 63 of 1959, while the respon-
dent filed A.S. No. 78 of 1959 claiming a further enhancement. 
The High Court, by the common judgment under appeal, allowed 
the appeals in part and dismissed them in other respects. As regard;; 
the coconut and orange topes, the High Court held that capitalization 
of the net income at 20 years' purchase was a fair method for arriving 
at their market value. 
In this appeal, the only point argued by counsel was the High 
Court went wrong in capitalizing the net income of the tapes at 20 
years' purchase. 
Counsel relied on the decision of the Madras High 
Court in Shunmuga Velavuda Mudaliar and others v. 
Collector of 
Tanjore(') where it was held that the proper method to find out the 
market value of coconut garden would be to Capitalize the net income 
from the garden at 10 years' purchase and said that there was no 
reason for the High Court to depart from the principle there laid 
down. 
It may be noted that no reason was given in that ruling why capi-
talization of the net income should be at l 0 years' purchase. All that 
the Court said was : 
"In Rajammal v. Head Quarters 
Deputy 
Collector, 
Vellore (1914) 25 I.C. 393, a Bench of this Court estimated 
the value of a tope of trees at 20 years' annual rental; but 
those were mango trees which as stated by the learned 
Judges, are long lived and 

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