Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bakshi Jaidev Singh vs State Of Haryana Through The Land ... on 24 May, 1996
Equivalent citations: (1997)116PLR630
JUDGMENT Harphul Singh Brar, J.
1. This judgment of mine will dispose of R.F.A. No. 2702 of 1987 (Bakshi Jaidev Singh etc. through their heirs and Mrs. Ram Rekhi v. State of Haryana; R.F.A. No. 2383 of 1987; Raj Kumar v. State of Haryana; R.F.A. No. 2295 of 1987 Choudhary Ram v. State of Haryana; and R.F.A. No. 2143 of 1987 Nika Singh v. State of Haryana, as they arise out of the common award dated 17.6.1987 of the Additional District Judge, Ambala vide which 11 reference were decided.
2. An area measuring 20 acres 2 marlas situated in village Dhulkot, Had Bast No. 60 and another village Suba Akbarpur was acquired by Haryana Government for public purpose, namely construction of Housing Board Colony, Haryana. Notification Under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called 'the Act') was issued on 5.4.1982 followed by the Notification under section 6 of the Act on 24.10.1988.
3. The sub-Divisiqnal Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Ambala pronounced his award on 4.6.1984 for the land. As for building structures in village Dhulkot, trees, fruits trees etc, a supplementary award was also pronounced by him on 3.8.1984. The following compensation was given to the different claimants which is reproduced as under :-
1. Glan Chand's reference : Compensation for buildin Rs. 16,150/-
2. Bikar Singh's reference : Compensation for building Rs. 1,00,450/-
3. Smt Rani Rakhi's reference: Compensation for trees Rs. 3,250/-
Compensation for building Rs. 2,190/-
4. Santokh Singh's reference : Compensation for trees Rs. 255/-
5. Lehna Singh's reference : Compensation for trees Rs. 4,667/-
6. Chaudhry Rani's reference : Compensation for trees Rs. 17,143.83P.
Compensation for building, well Rs. 3,806.00
7. Gurbachan Singh's reference: Compensation for building Rs, 3,762.00
8. Bhag Singh's reference : Compensation for building Rs. 1,132/-
9. Nika Singh's reference : Compensation for tree Rs. 102/-
Compensation for well Rs. 1,438/-
10. Janak Raj's reference : Compensation for building Rs. 5,010/-
11. Raj Kumar's reference : Compensation for trees Rs. 17,143.97P.
Compensation for building, well Rs. 3,806.00
The case of claimant Smt. Ram Rakhi in the reference was that she had constructed a pa'aual house consisting of three big rooms, kitchen verandah, buffalo room etc. besides big lawn, for which prayed for rupees three lacs. Her further case was that she had planted a garden on four kanals of land consisting of hundred guava trees for which she claimed rupees two lacs. Another sum of Rs. 50,000/- was claimed by her for the well.
5. The case of claimant Chaudhry Ram in the reference was that their building structures consisted of the following and that they be given compensation as noted against such:-
1. One room for the tubewell Rs. 2,000/-
2. Chuta Rs. 3000/-
3. Tubewell Rs. 8000/-
4. Garden of 250 trees Rs. 20,000/-
besides value of the crop.
He also claimed compensation for the garden which consisted of 250 trees.
6. The case of the claimant Nika Singh in the reference was that he had built one-storeyed house at the cost of Rs. 15,000/-, installed a tubewell at the cost of Rs. 20000/-, a pucca wall at the cost of Rs. 45,000/-, water reservoir at the cost of Rs. 1,500/ and two trees of the value of Rs. 500/-.
7. The case of the claimant Raj Kumar in the reference was that he is the owner of One half of the share detailed in the reference of Choudhry Ram claimant referred to above.
8. The following issues were framed by the Reference Court :-
1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector for the building structures, trees, etc. on the acquired Land is inadequate and the claimant is entitled to enhancement in compensation and to what extent ?
2. Relief
9. The State of Haryana in the written statement, contested the existence of building structures, trees, orchard etc. as alleged by the claimants and defended the award of the Collector.
10. In connection with the construction, the parties adduced evidence. After hearing the learned counsel for both the sides, the learned Reference Court declined the reference and dismissed the reference application.
11. In order to prove the value of their construction, the claimants relied on photographs Ex. PW. 19/14 to Ex. PW. 19/13. Their negatives are Ex. PW. 19/14 to Ex. PW. 19/23. These photographs have been proved by Ashok Kumar P.W. 19, Photographer, who claimed to have issued cash-memo(Ex. PW. 19/24 to Ex. PW. 19/28) under the name and style of 'Mehta Studio'. The learned Reference Court has rightly not relied upon these photographs as it was difficult to link the property of the claimants. The photographs did not show to which of the property each of these related. Simply because the owner was described to be standing before his property at the time of photographs, does not link the photographs with the property.
12. Another piece of evidence relied upon by the claimants were the estimates of the constructions and their plan. These estimates were allegedly prepared by S. Didar Singh P.W. 4, who claimed to have a Diploma in Civil Engineering and is presently working as Architect and valuer and also worked as a Draftsman with the Public Works Department. During the cross examination by the State, S. Didar Singh admitted that he prepared the reports and plans on 15.6.1986, i.e. just in one day. He further admitted that he had prepared the estimates on the basis of first class bricks as the material used in the construction. He further admitted that whatever the age of the structure was described by the owner, he took it as the age for evaluation. He further admitted that the evaluation had not been made by him according to the Public Works Department Schedule, but according to the rates prevailing in the market. He was unable to produce the schedule of the market rates, on the basis of which he had worked out the evaluation. He further admitted that the entire measurement for the structure was done by him on one day and that he had prepared the rough notes also, but he was unable to produce the rough notes in Court as evidence. The learned Reference Court did not accept the estimates worked out by S. Didar Singh as correct since as already stated above, the rough-notes of the estimates were not brought on record by him, which discredited the story of estimates being in accordance with the spot measurement.
13. The third piece of evidence relied upon by the claimants were in the form of their oral evidence. This was also not relied upon by the learned Reference Court and rightly so. .
14. No precise idea as to the price of construction could be made from the statement of the claimants, nor the estimates mentioned by them in their statements were found to be worthy of credence. These statements are ambiguous on the point of nature of construction. These are also, self-sensing statements. The veracity of the statements can be judged from the fact that in reference application of Bikar Singh, whose building structure is described to be most prestigious, the cost of construction was described as rupees ten lacs and an equal amount of compensation has been asked for.
15. Bikar Singh appearing as P.W. 1 deposed on oath before the Court that the market value of his kothi, which has been acquired by the State, was rupees four lacs on the date of acquisition. It thus, suggests that Bikar Singh himself slashed the value of his kothi to 40% of that mentioned in his reference application. Against this, S. Didar Singh assessed his value as Rs. 2,73,650/-. His evaluation is not considered worthy of reliance, as stated above, particularly when he has not observed the P.W.D. Schedule of rates. Even after assuming that the construction used in the building structure of Didar Singh was first class material, the value of the building of Bikar Singh has been assessed by the departmental experts at Rs. 1,00,450/- only.
16. In these circumstances, as stated above, the learned Reference Court has rightly rejected the plea of the claimants for enhancement in compensation for their structures.
17. Let me now take up the case of fruit trees. With regard to the trees, the state has put in witness-box Raj Kumar Singh R.W. 5, Agriculture Development Officer (Horticulture), Ambala. He stated that he had made evaluation of the fruit trees growing over the acquired land, to which the owners of the trees were also associated and that his report is Ex. RW 5/A.
18. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Additional District Judge without discussing and without giving any reasons, has relied upon the evidence of Raj Kumar Singh (RW-5) and his report Ex. RW/A for the evaluation of fruit trees. The learned counsel further submitted that this finding of the learned Additional District Judge is illegal and erroneous and is not based upon any cogent evidence on the file.
19. The learned counsel further contended that the evaluation of the fruit trees has not been made on any sound basis. The price has rather been fixed just by guess-work and only on the basis of the age of the trees. He has argued that the learned Additional District Judge should have relied upon the standard publication dealing with the "Basic Principles and Method of Evaluation of Fruit Trees" published by S. Harbans Singh, formerly Director of Horticulture, Himachal Pradesh, and who had held the high office of Chief Agricultural Expert and Agricultural Production Commissioner in the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India.
20. The learned counsel further contended that as per the said publication published in the year 1966, after realising that in the matters of determination of compensation of acquired land, the evaluation of trees was being done without any scientific basis. It was felt necessary to lay stress on a scientific formula to make the evaluation of fruit trees, orchards etc., as fool-proof and perfect, as possible, so that it could be understood and applied with ease by the acquiring authorities.
21. The learned counsel has referred to a judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Ranjit Singh v. The Union Territory of Chandigarh, (1983)85 P.L.R. 471 (F.B.). The learned counsel submitted that the evaluation of the fruit trees of the appellants should be made on the criteria laid down by Full Bench of this Court in Ranjit Singh's case (supra). The learned State Counsel is unable to rebut this argument of the learned counsel for the. appellant.
22. In view of the matter, the appeals are partly accepted so far as the evaluation of fruit trees is concerned. The cases are remanded back to the Reference Court to decide afresh the market value of the fruit trees after taking into consideration the law laid down in Ranjit Singh's case (supra). So far as the claim of the appellants regarding building structure, tubewells etc. and other claims are. concerned, the appeals are dismissed