# STATE OF MADRAS v. REV. BROTHER JOSEPH

- **Citation:** [1974] 1 S.C.R. 309
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1973-08-08
- **Case number:** Civil Appeals Nos. 1468-69 of 1967
- **Bench:** K. K. Mathew, M. H. Beg
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-madras-v-rev-brother-joseph-5973
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

309'
Laud acquisition-Compensation for fruit bearing trees-Method of -fixing.
The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation for certain land acquired'
and the method adopted by him for valuing coconut and orange topes
was
to
capitalise the net income from those tapes at 20 years' purchase.
On reference,
the Subordinate judge, though he increased the estimated yie1d from the
trees,
accepted that the capitalisation should be .at 20 years purchase.
On appeal, the
High Court also held that the method of cavi~alisation was a fair
method for
arriYing at the market value.
Dismissing the appeal by the State to this Court.
HELD : The approved method for valuing orchards is to capitalise their net
income at a number of years· plirchase which has· to be fixed with reference to.
the nature of trees and other' circumstances. [310 G]
In the present case, the Land Acquisition Oftlcer found that all the fruit bearin£ trees would .Yield for" more than 20 years, and tlicreforc, the method of capitalisation was a fair method.
[311 A-BJ
Konipalli Nageslzwara Rao &: Others v. Special Deputy Collector, Land Ac..-
quisition, A.I.R. 1926 Madras 945 (2) and Elias M. Coben v. Secv. of State. 43'
Ind Cas 17(2) : A.LR. 1918 Pat. 625, approved.
· Shunmuea Velayuda Mudali•r and Others v. Collector of Taniore,
A.I.R ..
1926 Madras 945, referred to.

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H.
STATE OF MADRAS
v.
REV. BROTHER JOSEPH
August 8, 1973
[K. K. MATHEW AND M. H. BEG, JJ.]
309'
Laud acquisition-Compensation for fruit bearing trees-Method of -fixing.
The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation for certain land acquired'
and the method adopted by him for valuing coconut and orange topes
was
to
capitalise the net income from those tapes at 20 years' purchase.
On reference,
the Subordinate judge, though he increased the estimated yie1d from the
trees,
accepted that the capitalisation should be .at 20 years purchase.
On appeal, the
High Court also held that the method of cavi~alisation was a fair
method for
arriYing at the market value.
Dismissing the appeal by the State to this Court.
HELD : The approved method for valuing orchards is to capitalise their net
income at a number of years· plirchase which has· to be fixed with reference to.
the nature of trees and other' circumstances. [310 G]
In the present case, the Land Acquisition Oftlcer found that all the fruit bearin£ trees would .Yield for" more than 20 years, and tlicreforc, the method of capitalisation was a fair method.
[311 A-BJ
Konipalli Nageslzwara Rao &: Others v. Special Deputy Collector, Land Ac..-
quisition, A.I.R. 1926 Madras 945 (2) and Elias M. Coben v. Secv. of State. 43'
Ind Cas 17(2) : A.LR. 1918 Pat. 625, approved.
· Shunmuea Velayuda Mudali•r and Others v. Collector of Taniore,
A.I.R ..
1926 Madras 945, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 1468-69 of
1967.
From the Judgment and Decree dated the 10th April, 1962 of the
High Court of Madras in Appeal Suit Nos. 63 and 78 of 1959.
A. V. Rangam and A. Subhashini, for the appellant.
V. M. Tarkunde and Naunit Lal, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
MATHEW, J. These two appeals,
by certificate
are directed
against the judgment and decree of the High Court or' Madras in A.S.
Nos. 63 and 78 of 1959 dated April 10, 1962.
The appellant, the Government of Maclr~.s, acquired 9 acres and
86 c~nrs _of "land in Tirunelveli District as it was needed for reserve
area m Block III of Manimuthar Project.
The notification under s.
4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on Macch 7, 1956.
.
The area of the land with which we are concerned in this appeat
is one acre and '59 cents comprised of 3 topes,
of coconuts and
oranges.
. The Land Acquisition ~llice!, by his awaql, gave a total compensa!Io~ of Rs. 28,?72-15-6 mclus1ve of solatium. The method adopted
by h_1m for valumg. coconut and orange topes was to capitalize the
net mcome from these topes at 20 years' purchase.
310
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1974 j 1 S.C.R.
Dissatisfied with the award, the respondent moved for reference
under s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the case wa, referred to
the Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli.
The learned Subordinate Judge increased the estimated yield from
the coconut and orange trees as well as the price of the yield but
capitalized the net income at 20 years' purchase.
Against this deci·
sion, the State of Madras filed As. No. 63 of 1959, while the respondent filed A.S. No. 78 of 1959 claiming a further enhancement.
The High Court, by the common judgment under appeal, allowed
the appeals in part and dismissed them in other respects. As regard;;
the coconut and orange topes, the High Court held that capitalization
of the net income at 20 years' purchase was a fair method for arriving
at their market value.
In this appeal, the only point argued by counsel was the High
Court went wrong in capitalizing the net income of the tapes at 20
years' purchase.
Counsel relied on the decision of the Madras High
Court in Shunmuga Velavuda Mudaliar and others v.
Collector of
Tanjore(') where it was held that the proper method to find out the
market value of coconut garden would be to Capitalize the net income
from the garden at 10 years' purchase and said that there was no
reason for the High Court to depart from the principle there laid
down.
It may be noted that no reason was given in that ruling why capitalization of the net income should be at l 0 years' purchase. All that
the Court said was :
"In Rajammal v. Head Quarters
Deputy
Collector,
Vellore (1914) 25 I.C. 393, a Bench of this Court estimated
the value of a tope of trees at 20 years' annual rental; but
those were mango trees which as stated by the learned
Judges, are long lived and yield produce for a number of
years.''
There was no discussion in the judgment of the principle on the
basis of which such a mode of calculation was adopted.
In Kompalli Nageshwara Rao & Others v. Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition(2 ), the Court said that the. approved method
for valuing orchards is to capitalize their net income at a number of
years' purchase which has to be fixed with reference to the nature of
the trees and other circumstances and capitalized the net income at
15 years' purchase for finding out the market value of the coconut
garden and the orange orchard in question in that case. In Elias M.
Cohen v. Secy. of State('), the net income from an orchard was capitalized at 15 years' purchase to find out its market value.
In this case, the Land Acquisition Officer found in his award that
all the fruit bearing trees will yield for more th,an 20 years.
That was
(I) A.l.R. 1926 Mad. 945 (2).
(2) A.I.R. 1959 A.P. 52 at 61.
(3) 43 Ind. Cas 17(2): A.I.R. 1918 Pat. 625(2) (Q}.
A
B
c
0
E
F
G
H
II
MAllRAS v. REV. BROl'llFR JOSEPH (Mathew, J.)
31 l
the reason which wcighcJ with him lo capitalize the net income of
these lopes at 20 years' pw·chasc to find out their market value. We
do not think that the lc:1rncd Subordinate Judge and the High Court
went wrong in accepting this estimate of the avera/ll) yielding life of
coconut and orange trees.
Therefore, we do not think that the capitalization of the net yield from these topcs at 20 years' purchase was
not a fair method to arrive :1t Ll1c· market value of these lopes. We
arc not satisfied that the method of valuation adopted for finding out
the market value of the topcs was. in the circumstances, in any way
unreasonable.
The appeals fail and they arc dismissed with co,.s.
V.P.S.
Appeals dismissed.