Coordinate-Bench Award Of Higher Multiplier For Orchard Compensation Must Be Restored To Avoid Discrimination

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih heard an appeal challenging a Bombay High Court order that reduced the multiplier applied to compensation for uprooted orange trees in land acquisition proceedings. The civil appeal arose from a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and contested the High Court’s decision to reduce the multiplier from 15 to 10 for 42 orange trees standing on the acquired land.

The Court allowed the appeal and restored the reference court’s determination on compensation for the orange trees, holding that similarly situated landowners should not be treated differently where a coordinate-bench award applying a higher multiplier had been accepted by the acquiring body. The Court contrasted the limited precedential effect of Bilquis v. State of Maharashtra and noted that M. Ramakrishna Reddy recognised a “general trend” in multipliers but also left room for special circumstances. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Court further observed earlier decisions only applied “in the facts and circumstances of the case” and recognised that “the general trend is to adopt a multiplier of 8 to 10 in regard to plantations, fruit orchards, and the multiplier ranging from 10 to 12 for agricultural crop land,” while allowing deviation where special circumstances existed.

Background The dispute arose from large-scale acquisition in village Khanapur, Tehsil Patur, Akola district, notified under Section 4 on 22 August 1995; possession was taken on 1 April 1996. The appellants sought a reference (LAR No. 203 of 2002) and the reference court, after hearing evidence, made an award on 29 August 2011. The reference court assessed compensation for 42 orange trees at Rs. 3,15,000 (applying a multiplier equating to 15 years’ purchase). Other awards in adjacent lands heard contemporaneously by the same reference court also applied a multiplier of 15; one such award was upheld by the High Court on 27 November 2019 in First Appeal No. 627 of 2013 and that decision had been accepted by the respondent corporation.

On appeal in the present matter, the learned Judge of the High Court reduced the multiplier to 10, relying on this Court’s decisions in Bilquis v. State of Maharashtra and M. Ramakrishna Reddy, thus lowering compensation for the 42 orange trees to Rs. 2,10,000. The Supreme Court found that the High Court reduced the multiplier without being apprised of the coordinate-bench judgment dated 27 November 2019 and without tenable reasons to justify disparate treatment of similarly situated landowners. The Court noted expert evidence placed before the reference court that orange trees could live up to 30 years and might bear fruit for 15 to 20 years, and that the appellants’ trees were 3–4 years old, making application of the higher multiplier plausible on the facts.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s modification and restored the reference court’s award for the 42 orange trees. The appeal was allowed and the respondent was directed to pay the balance sum of Rs. 1,05,000 to the appellants within eight weeks, with interest at 6% per annum from 17 September 2020 until payment; in default the rate would rise to 9% per annum. Pending applications were disposed of.

Case No.: 2025 INSC 1022 Case Title: SARASWATABAI MOTIRAM TAYADE & ORS. v. VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION & ANR. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated For the Respondent(s): Not indicated