- (1.) The legal heirs of the original landowner are in appeal against the order of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital dated 19th June, 2013 passed in F.A.O. No.161/2001 by which compensation for acquisition of the land of the original landowner has been reduced by the High Court. The proceedings in question before the High Court arose out of Land Acquisition Reference Case No.171 of 1990. The area of land involved was 0.81 acres and the value for the purpose of determination of compensation was worked out by taking the annual value of the orchard which was on the land in question at Rs.41,458/-. Thereafter, the multiplier of 15 (fifteen) was applied resulting in the compensation package being worked out at Rs.6,24,956/- along with solatium, etc. etc. The High Court reduced the compensation by holding that the appropriate multiplier to be applied would be 08 (eight) and not 15 (fifteen).
(2.) The facts stated above has been tried to be culled out from the mass of facts and figures which had been brought on record, despite which, however, the final picture remained a little hazy and unclear. However, inaccuracy in the facts stated above would not be relevant to or determinative of the issue that the Court is required to answer in the present proceedings, namely, whether the decision in State of Haryana vs. Gurcharan Singh 1995 Supp. (2) SCC 637 [Two judges] followed in Airports Authority of India vs. Satyagopal Roy and others (2002) 3 SCC 527 [Three judges] lays down any inflexible proposition of law that the multiplier should not in any case exceed 08 (eight).
(3.) Gurcharan Singh (supra) involved a case where the compensation was determined by taking into account the market value of the land as well as the value of the annual yield as against the multiplier insofar as the fruit bearing trees are concerned. It is in the aforesaid facts that in Gurcharan Singh (supra) this Court had held that the multiplier should not exceed 08 (eight), after holding that the benefit of compensation on two counts would result in a situation of double benefit and is, therefore, not permissible. It is in the above context that the decision in Gurcharan Singh (supra) has to be understood. The decision in Airports Authority of India (supra) was rendered in a situation where no acquisition of land was involved and the fruit bearing trees on the land adjacent to the runway had to be felled on account of mandatory regulatory measures in force. It must also be taken note of that in Airports Authority of India (supra) this Court also took note of certain other decisions of this Court where the multiplier of 08 (eight) was departed from in the special facts of the case and, in fact, in the case before it, this Court having regard to the meager amount of compensation awarded did not disturb the finding of the High Court which had adopted the multiplier of 18 (eighteen). In the present case, over and above the fact that the area of the land involved was a small parcel measuring 0.81 acres we have also taken into account the life span of the fruit bearing trees on the said land, description of which is to be found in the award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer and that the compensation package awarded is a meager amount of Rs.6,24,956/- along with the statutory benefits.;