Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amrit Lal And Ors. vs State Of Haryana And Ors. on 1 February, 1999
Equivalent citations: (1999)121PLR744
Author: N.C. Khichi
Bench: N.C. Khichi
ORDER Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.
1. The appellants complaint that the learned Single Judge has erred in fixing the market value of the land acquired for the King Fisher Tourist Complex, Ambala at only Rs. 25/- per square yard. They further complaint that the learned Judge has not assessed the value of the eucalyptus trees correctly. Is it so? A few facts may be noticed.
2. On January 15, 1982, the State of Haryana issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of agricultural land situate in village Dhulkot. Land was being acquired for the purpose of establishing a Tourist Complex. The Collector had announced the award on January 12, 1983. He divided the land into four different categories and assessed the compensation on the basis of quality of land. On reference, the District Judge had divided the land into two broad categories. The market value was assessed at Rs. 7/- and Rs. 5/- per square yard respectively for the two categories of land. The learned Single Judge found that 'there was no basis for the classification of the land on the basis of distance from the main road. He assessed the market value at Rs. 25/- per square yard.
3. So far as the present appellants are concerned they not only claimed compensation on account of land but also for the trees standing thereon, it was contended that there were 600 trees on the land. The value of each tree was Rs. 125/-. On this basis, a claim for compensation was made. The learned Single Judge found that there were 200 trees on the land. The value of each trees was fixed at Rs. 25/-. On this basis, a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- was assessed.
4. The land owners have filed the present Letters Patent Appeal with a two fold grievance. Firstly, they complain that the market value of the land has been wrongly fixed at Rs. 25/- per square yard. Secondly, the land owners urge that the value of each tree could not be less than Rs. 125/- each. Is it so?
5. We have heard Mr. I.S. Saini, learned counsel for the appellants. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondents.
6. So far as the claim regarding the market value of the land is concerned, Mr. Saini has very fairly pointed out that the matter is concluded by the judgment of a Division Bench, to which one of us was a party, in Devinder Singh and Ors. v. State Of Haryana and Ors., (1998-3)120 P.L.R. 27. The view of the learned Single Judge with regard to fixation of market value at Rs. 25/- per square yard was up-held. In this view of the matter, the learned counsel for the appellants is not in a position to contend that the appellants are entitled to any relief in respect of the market value of the land. He has, however, vehemently pressed the claim in respect of the value of the trees. Learned counsel has pointed out that the ocular evidence of the witnesses has not been considered by the learned Single Judge. It has been urged that according to the evidence on the record, the trees were six or seven years old at the time of acquisition. Still further, the value of each tree could not be less than Rs. 125/-.
7. Gopal Dass, Block Officer, Forest Department has appeared as PW4. He has stated that the Forest Department had planted trees under the Farm Forestry Scheme in the year 1973-74. According to the witness, a plant develops in a period of eight or nine years and then it fetches a value of Rs. 125/-. In cross-examination, he pointed out that the entry in respect of village Dhulkot existed in his register. According to this entry, which is placed on the record as Exhibit PW4/A, the trees had been planted in the year 1974-75. Still further, Phula Ram, Sarpanch of the village has appeared as PW8. He categorically stated that there were 600 safeda trees which were in existence on the land in the year 1981. He stated that the value of the trees was Rs. 75,000/-. In cross-examination, he asserted that he had counted the trees after the land had been acquired. He also stated that the diameter of the trees was one foot each. The claimant himself has asserted that 800 trees had been planted out of which 600 plants had survived and that these were in existence on the land when it was acquired. He has also stated that in the land which was almost adjoining to the acquired land, trees which had been planted were sold in the year 1980 and these had fetched a price of Rs. 125/- each. On this basis, it is claimed that the price should have been fixed at Rs. 150/-per tree.
8. After hearing the learned Counsel and examining the evidence produced by him before us, we did not find any ground to revise the number of trees. However, on the basis of evidence, the value as fixed by the learned Single Judge appears to be grossly inadequate. After examining the matter, we find that the trees had been planted in the year 1974. In 1982, these would be fairly grown. In this situation, we think that the value of each tree could not be less than Rs. 100/-. Accordingly, the compensation for the trees should have been assessed on that basis. When so counted, the claimants were entitled to the com- pensation of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousands only) on" account of the trees. They will be entitled to the other benefits as admissible under the law.
9. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. Since no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent, there shall be no order as to costs.