A.N. Varma, J. - (1.) THIS petition has come upon remand by the Supreme Court, which set aside an earlier order passed by this court dated 19 -9 -1979 whereby the petition was dismissed on the ground that the same had been filed beyond 90 days of the passing of the impugned order. Remanding the case the Supreme Court has observed that there is no fixed period of limitation prescribed for petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. What is to be seen is whether the petitioner is guilty of laches. In the present case there were no laches. The question which arises for consideration is whether the authorities under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 have correctly determined the amount of compensation for the fruit bearing trees standing over the land belonging to the petitioner declared surplus under the Act and vested in the State. The Prescribed Authority determined the compensation payable to the petitioner for the trees which consisted apple, apricot, peaches and plum trees at Rs. 8,17,000.80, Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed an appeal which has been partly allowed by the learned Ist Additional District Judge, Nainital. The appellate court determined the compensation at Rs. 8,57,400/ -.
(2.) THE petitioners contend that neither of the two authorities has correctly appreciated the true legal position as to the principle to be adopted in determining the compensation to the peculiar facts of the present case. For appreciating the contention, it will be necessary to set out the basic facts which are not in dispute. The property in dispute is in the shape of an orchard called 'Brindaban Orchard' situate in Ramgarh district, Nainital. The total area of this Orchard is 457 acres out of which 367 acres was declared surplus and has vested in the State. There are 25510 fruit bearing trees standing over this land. Possession of the part of the Orchard declared surplus was taken by the State on 5 -11 -1976. The petitioner had purchased this Orchard in two lots - -the first on 25 -9 -1965 for Rs. 6,00,000/ - (Rs. six lacs) while the second was acquired by the petitioner on 16 -6 -1966 for a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/ - (Rs. 9 lacs). The authorities have found that the accounts for the turnover or profits for the period prior to 1968 are not available. However, the yearly profits accrued to the petitioners during the year 1968 to 1976 are available and the same have been found to work out to an aggregate of Rs. 13,18,382.75. This figure is based on the actual gross income earned by the petitioner during the year 1968 to 1976. In order, however, to ascertain the profits accrued to the petitioners during this period the courts below have deducted 15% out of the gross turnover.
(3.) THUS far there was no difficulty. The real problem arose in working out the annual fair average value of fruit crops according to the formula prescribed under the Act. The entire issue hinges on the explanation added to the Schedule appended to the Act according to which the annual value of the fruits had to be worked out by taking the arithmetic mean of 20 years profits accruing from such trees. It is in the application of this Explanation that the courts below felt driven to adopt varying methods of calculation.;