Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of H.P. & Ors vs Shri Dewan Chand Sharma on 31 July, 2017
Author: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RFA No. 58 of 2011 .
Date of decision: 31st July, 2017
State of H.P. & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Shri Dewan Chand Sharma ...Respondent
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellants r : Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, Addl. A.G. For the Respondent : Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge
1. This appeal can be disposed of on a short ground. The dispute lies in a narrow compass. The land of the claimant/respondent was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (for short the 'Act') and aggrieved by the compensation as assessed by the Collector, the respondent preferred a Reference Petition before the learned Addl. District Judge under Section 18 of the Act for the enhancement of the same.
2. As regards the market value of the acquired land, the learned Court below rejected the said contention by observing that the claimant had not led cogent or convincing evidence to prove Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?yes.
::: Downloaded on - 01/08/2017 23:57:35 :::HCHP 2that the land should have been assessed at Rs.15 lacs. This would be evident from para 10 of the award passed by the learned Court .
below, which reads thus:-
"10. Although, the petitioner has alleged in his statement that the Land Acquisition Collector has not properly assessed the market value of the acquired land and it should have been assessed as Rs.15 lakh, no cogent and convincing evidence in the shape of sale deed etc. has been brought on record to prove that the market value of the acquired land at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was Rs.15 lakh. It was incumbent upon the petitioner to have brought on record the copy of the sale deed of some other land situated near or in the surrounding area if the acquired land in order to prove the rate of the land, prevalent in the area on the date of acquisition. In the absence of copy of sale deed, the petitioner cannot be said to have proved that the market value of the acquired land at the time of acquisition was Rs.15 lakh. Ex.PW7/C is the copy of the award which shows that the Land Acquisition Collector has assessed the value of acquired land on the basis of the rate of the land approved by the Collector. Hence, it is held that the petitioner has failed to prove that the market value of the acquired land has not been correctly assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector."
3. Admittedly, the said findings have attained finality and are thus not open to challenge. The dispute now narrows down to the plea of the claimant that there were 130 fruit bearing trees on the existing land for which no compensation has been awarded.
4. The learned Court below by placing reliance upon the statement of the petitioner and the jamabandi Ex.PW7/B, ::: Downloaded on - 01/08/2017 23:57:35 :::HCHP 3 concluded that there were 130 trees existing over the suit land as the same was recorded as "Bagicha Kalaru Faldar" and on the .
basis of the same straightaway proceeded to award a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards the value of these trees.
Hence, it is apt to reproduce paragraph 12 and 14 of the award which reads thus:-
"12. The petitioner himself has stated in his statement that about 130 trees were existed over the suit land. His evidence on this point has been supported by revenue record. Ex.PW7/B is the jamabandi of that land of the petitioner, the part of which has been acquired by the respondents. A perusal of Ex.PW7/B shows that khasra no. 297 is recorded as "Bagicha Kalaru Faldar". The respondents have examined Sh. Achharu Ram as RW3, who has admitted in his cross-examination that trees of Buhal, Kambal and Sesham were existed over the land of the petitioner which had been uprooted at the time of construction of the road. Ex.PW7/A is the estimate prepared by Sh. B.C. Sharma, retired Principal, which also shows that trees were standing over the land acquired by the respondents. Thus on the basis of oral and documentary evidence adduced by the petitioner, it is held to be established on record that about 130 trees were existed over the suit land acquired by the respondents.
14. In view of the law laid down by our own Hon'ble High Court in above cited case, it is held that the petitioner is entitled to get compensation for trees standing over the acquired land. Admittedly, LAC has not assessed the value of the trees existed over the acquired land. I have already given my findings that the petitioner has been able to prove that about 130 trees were existed over the acquired land. Now the question is as to what was the market value of the trees existed over the acquired land. Although the petitioner has brought on record one estimate ::: Downloaded on - 01/08/2017 23:57:35 :::HCHP 4 Ex.PW7/A, but the persons who had prepared this estimate has not been examined in the court. Hence, the value of the trees given in the estimate Ex.PW7/A cannot be accepted as correct. However, .
considering the facts that the trees were 130 in number and were fruit bearing trees, I feel it would be just ad proper if the petitioner is awarded compensation of Rs.2 lakh as value for the trees existed over the suit land."
5. How the learned Court below concluded that there were 130 trees standing over the suit land and how awarded the lump sum compensation of Rs.2 lakh is anybody guess.
6. It is more than settled that compensation in relation to fruit bearing trees would depend on several factors like number of trees, their age, yield, kind, species etc. etc.
7. As regards yield, the same would, in turn, be dependent on various factors like irrigation, manuring etc.
8. The award passed by the learned Court below, to say the least, has no leg to stand and is, therefore, set aside. The appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the learned Court below to decide the same afresh in accordance with law.
9. Parities through their counsel to appear before the Court on 21.8.2017. The Court below shall proceed to decide the case as expeditiously as possible, in no event later than 31st December, 2017.
July 31, 2017 (Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
(Sanjeev) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 01/08/2017 23:57:35 :::HCHP