JUDGMENT
Pradipta Ray, J.
1. “The State of Orissa has preferred this appeal against the judgment and award dated September 23, 1998 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in L.A. Case No. 19 of 1998 on a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
2. The State of Orissa acquired Ac. 3.48 decimals of agricultural land belonging to Ainthu Sabar, since deceased, and predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, for the purpose of Rengali Dam Project. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act dated July 9, 1988 was published in the gazette on August 25, 1988. The acquired land was agricultural land of Class-I variety with irrigation facility from the nearby Kata and Bandh and had considerable number of fruit bearing trees, viz. 49 Mahuwa trees, 14 Kendu trees, 15 Sal trees and 10 Asan trees. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded a total compensation of Rs. 37,372/- for the acquired land and the trees standing thereon. As the original claimant was not satisfied with the award he filed application for reference. Upon such application, the case was referred to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act.
3. In the Civil Court none of the sides exhibited any document to show the sale value of the land on the appropriate date. In absence of such material the Civil Court adopted the method of capitalizing the income from the acquired land in order to determine market value. By the impugned judgment and award the Civil Court has granted Rs. 74,277.12 paise as compensation for the land and Rs. 36,500/- paise as compensation for the land and Rs. 36,500/- for the trees.
4. The Civil Court has assessed the annual yield from the acquired land and value thereof as suggested by the Government Pleader. The Civil Court also accepted the statement of trees submitted by the State Government to find out the number of trees standing on the acquired land. Thus the appellant-State cannot raise any valid dispute or objection regarding annual agricultural yield, value thereof and the number of trees standing on the acquired land.
5. The Civil Court has applied a multiplier of 16 to determine the market value on the basis of the yield from agricultural land. According to the State of Orissa, the Civil Court has adopted a multiplier higher than permissible in law. Mr. Das, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has referred to the judgments of the Supreme Court and has submitted that a multiplier of 10 should have been adopted as suitable multiplier. In State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr., (AIR 1996 Supreme Court 106) the Supreme Court has observed :
“….. Under no circumstances, the multiplier should be more than 8 years multiplier as it is settled law of this Court in catena of decisions that when the market value is determined on the basis of the yield from the trees or plantation, 8 years multiplier shall be appropriate multiplier. For agricultural land 12 years multiplier shall be suitable multiplier.”
6. In Airports Authority of India v. Satyagopal Roy and Ors., AIR 2000 SC 1423, Supreme Court has reiterated the view adopted in Gurcharan Singh’s case (supra). In Airports Authority of India v. Satyagopal Roy (Supra) the High Court adopted a multiplier of 18. Referring to the views expressed in Gurcharan Singh’s case (supra) Supreme Court held that the High Court committed error apparent in awarding compensation adopting the multiplier of 18. But ultimately it did not interfere with the order in view of the small amount of compensation involved therein.
7. Miss Mira Ghose, learned Advocate appearing for the claimant-respondent has submitted that no uniform standard multiplier has been laid down as the settled principle regarding adoption of multiplier while determining market value of the land on the basis of capitalising the value of agricultural yields. She has referred to a decision of the Supreme Court and two decisions of this High Court to submit that in the State of Orissa a multiplier 16 is generally adopted to determine market value in accordance with the method of capitalising the agricultural yields. Miss. Ghose has pointed out that a Division Bench of this Court in Land Acquisition Zone Officer v. Damberudhar Pradhan and Ors., AIR 1991 Orissa 271. The Division Bench of this Court in the said case held that 16 years purchase was ideal to be adopted for fixing the market value of the land in Orissa. The said decision is being consistently followed and even the Supreme Court in the Executive Director v. Sarat Chandra Bisoi and Anr., AIR 2000 SC 2619, approved the said Division Bench decision of this Court. In the said Damberudhar Pradhan’s case (supra) the Supreme Court has observed :
“……Our attention has been invited to a Division Bench decision of the High Court of Orissa in Land Acquisition Zone Officer v. Damberudhar Pradhan, AIR 1991 Orissa 271 wherein on a conspectus of decided case, the Division Bench has held that 16 years purchase was ideal to be adopted for fixing the market value of the land in Orissa. The High Court has adopted the same multiplier for this case. We do not find any therewith, in the facts and circumstances of the case and approve the same.”
Recently in Special Land Acquisition Officer, Rengali Irrigation Project, Dhenkanal v. Sauri Charan Sahu, 2002 (II) OLR 226 this Court has applied multiplier 16 in respect of the agricultural yield.
8. From the decision as cited it appears to this Court that the Supreme Court has not yet laid down any hard and fast law to adopt a uniform multiplier in all cases. Multiplier is a variable dependent on several factors such as geographical location, method of agriculture, irrigation facility etc. Generally speaking a multiplier for agricultural yield should not be less than 10 and more than 16. Moreover, it appears that in the State of Orissa a multiplier of 16 has been consistently adopted and has also been approved by the Apex Court in case of agricultural yield.
9. In the present case the lands have been acquired for the same Rengali Irrigation Project. The Civil Court has not taken the income from the fruit bearing trees to determine the market value of the land. The value of the trees has been determined as wood only. The value of the land has been determined on the basis of the agricultural yield. This Court does not find any error in the adoption of multiplier 16 for agricultural yield in the State of Orissa.
10. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails. No order as to costs.