59,494/6/ .
Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated April 28, 1961 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in First Appeal No.
The appellants did number agree to the award made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and at their instance the question of companypensation was referred to the District Court of Raigarh under s. 18 of the Act.
250 Gauva trees apart from other trees.
100/ and of Mosambi at Rs.
70/ to 80/ per year.
Aggrieved by the decision of the learned Additional District Judge, the Collector of Raigarh appealed to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
In that orchard apart from the Orange, Mosambi and Gauva trees, there were some other trees but we need number companycern ourselves about those trees as numberdispute was raised before us either as to .their number or value The learned L12 Sup C1/68 12 Additional District Judge companyputed the net income from each Orange tree at Rs.
For those lands the appellants claimed companypensation in a sum of Rs.
In that orchard admittedly there were 160 Orange trees, 41 Mosambi trees.,
In particular he valued the trees in the orchard acquired at Rs.
1,47,751/7/ with interest as provided in the decree.
133 1 a of the Constitution.
180 of 1959.
7,95,770/ under various heads but the Special Land Acquisition Officer under two different awards awarded to them a sum of Rs.
The High Court substantially modified the decree of ,the learned Additional District Judge.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil APPEAL No.
He capitalised that income at 12 years purchase and thus arrived.
In that appeal the appellants filed a memorandum of cross objections praying for the enhancement of the companypensation payable to them.
667 of 1965.
3,29,480/ .
There is numberdispute as regards the number of trees in the orchard.
240/ .
Relying on certain official reports and the pamphlets published by certain individuals as to the yield from Orange, Mosambi and Gauva trees, average span of life of those trees and the market value of Orange, Mosambi and Guava, the High Court re assessed the companypensation payable and came to the companyclusion that the total value of the trees in the orchard in question companyld be reasonably fixed at Rs.
T. Desai, V.D. Mishra and A.G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appellants.
Among the lands so acquired some of the appellants lands were also included.
The learned Additional District Judge valued each one of the Orange and Mosambi trees at Rs.
N. Shroff, for the respondent.
Several lands in the Raigarh District of Madhya Pradesh were acquired by the Collector of Raigarh in pursuance of the request made by the Government of Orissa.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde, J. In this appeal from the decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in First Appeal NO.
The Additional District Judge who tried the reference in question enhanced the companypensation payable to the appellants to Rs.
180 of 1959 on its file the principal question that arises for decision is as to the market value of the appellants orchard acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act 1894 to be hereinafter referred to as the Act in companynection with the companystruction of Hirakud Dam in Orissa State.
960/ and Gauva tree at Rs.
2,19.220/ .
It determined the companypensation payable to the appellants at Rs.
Against that decision the appellants have brought this appeal after obtaining a certificate under Art.
doing he heavily relied on the oral evidence adduced by the appellants.
