R. F. A No. 5013 of 2008 1
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
R. F. A No. 5013 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of decision : 11.11.2008
Punjab State and another ... Appellants
vs
Shamsher Singh and others .... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. B. B. S. Teji, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J.
The State is in appeal against the award of the learned court
below whereby on account of acquisition of trees standing on the acquired
land, compensation payable therefor has been enhanced from Rs. 2725/- to
Rs. 12,000/-.
Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 2.8.1982,
issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the
Act’), the State of Punjab, acquired land in the revenue estate of Village
Bhatoli, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur. The Land Acquisition
Collector vide award dated 23.11.1983 assessed the value of the acquired
land. However, the award in respect of the trees has been given on 2.8.1988.
Dissatisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, the
landowners/claimants filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the
Act, the learned court below vide award dated 15.3.2008, enhanced the
compensation for the acquisition of trees from Rs. 2,725/- to Rs. 12,000/-.
A perusal of the impugned award shows that at the time of
acquisition of land, the trees were 15-20 years old. The Land Acquisition
Collector determined the value of the acquired trees merely at Rs. 2,,725/-.
On perusal of the material placed on record, the learned court below
enhanced the same to Rs. 12,000/-. It was on the basis of evaluation report
submitted by the landowners which was prepared by Jasbir Singh, Retired
Deputy Director, Horticulture Department, Punjab. In his statement, it was
submitted that the report was prepared on the basis of Dr. Nijjer’s formula
R. F. A No. 5013 of 2008 2
for the purpose of evaluation of age and life of the trees at the time of
acquisition. As against this, in the evidence led by the State, it was
submitted that the inspection of the trees was carried out in the year 1986,
which could not be fully proved on record, as no presence memo was
prepared at the time of visit. Even the land on which the alleged trees were
standing had not been identified. The reports of estimates Ex. R-1 to R-6
placed on record were also not proved for the reason that it contains
signatures of Shri P. S. Hira but he was not examined. It was with this
material produced on record by the State which did not inspire full
confidence that the learned court below had to apply thumb rule considering
the number of trees and the life thereof and enhanced the compensation
from Rs. 2,725/- to Rs. 12,000/-, which cannot be said to be on the higher
side.
In view of my above discussion, the appeal is dismissed.
11.11.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge