[Non-Reportable]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 488 OF 2018
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 2223 of 2017)
State of Punjab and Ors.
...........Appellants
Versus
Thuru Ram
........Respondent
JUDGMENT
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.
Leave granted.
2. The Judgment dated 06.05.2015 passed by the High Court of
Punjab
&
Haryana
at
Chandigarh in R.F.A. No. 2435 of 1996 is
called
in
question by the State of Punjab on the ground
that
the
compensation ordered to be paid in respect of the fruit trees standing on the acquired land is liable to
be
reduced
substantially.
3. Land of the
respondent was acquired along
with
trees
standing on it for construction of Hydel Channel. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was
issued
on
12.01.1990 and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was
made
on
28.02.1990.
The
Land
Acquisition Collector
passed
the
supplementary
award awarding compensation of the fruit trees standing on the acquired
land
on
10.03.1993. Reference
Court
had
rejected
the
reference sought by the respondent
holding
that
the
award
made by the Land Acquisition Collector was
proper
and
correct.
The
respondent approached the High Court of
Punjab
&
Haryana
by
filing
the
appeal which came to be allowed by the impugned judgment and reference was accepted awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,77,377/- for the standing trees on the acquired land
along
with
other statutory benefits as per Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act. Hence, this appeal by the
State.
4. Heard
the
parties.
The
counsel
for
appellant
taking
us
through
the
material
on
record submits
that
the
judgment of the High Court is liable to be set aside inasmuch as it has not considered the
evidence
in
proper perspective while coming to the conclusion. She has drawn our attention to certain paragraphs of the judgment of the reference
court
in
support of the said contention. Per contra, learned advocate for the respondent
argued
in
support of the judgment of the
High Court.
5. The
respondent/the claimant relied upon Exhibit A.1. i.e. the assessment report of AW-2 prepared by an
expert,
in
support of his contention seeking enhancement. On the other hand, the State relied upon the
opinion
of
another expert i.e. RW-2 (the report of RW-2 is at Exhibit R.1.) to contend
that
the
respondent is not entitled for compensation as sought in respect of the
trees.
6. According
to
respondent, 396 fruit trees were standing on the acquired land of the respondent.
They
were,
orange
28,
peach
76,
mausami 135
and
mango
157. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded total compensation
of
Rs.
37,321.12
including
30
percent solatium and
12
percent
increase
in
respect of such fruit trees. As mentioned
supra,
the
reference court on evaluating the material on record confirmed the award of the Land Acquisition
Collector.
7. Though,
the
respondent (AW-1) claimed that the 396 fruit trees were standing, in his deposition he stated that they were 250 fruit
trees
which
included amrood, orange
and
mango.
Such trees were 4 to 5 years old. The expert
examined
by
the respondent
i.e.
AW-2
Sunder Singh is a retired District Agricultural
Officer
who
served for 34 years in various capacities.
According
to
his report total value of all the
trees
was
Rs.6,35,114.70. Certain other factors such as distance of land from the town etc. are also
deposed
by
him.
Per contra, the Patwari (RW-1) examined on behalf of the appellant State has produced khasra girdawari register of the relevant village in respect of certain years. The total area of the acquired land belonging to the respondent is 7 kanals 2 marlas (less than 1 acre). In 1985-86, wheat and other crops were shown to have sown in the land. However, subsequently orchard (Bagicha) has been added with different ink in the crops column and according to him such entry was made, i.e. adding the word Bagicha, without any order from the competent authority. No initials were also found. According to RW-2, Horticulture Development Officer the acquired trees of the respondent were found to be of ‘D’ category. He has given the value of every kind of standing fruit trees. The valuation of RW-2 is far less than the valuation provided by AW-2.
8. The
expert
examined
by
the respondent
(AW-2)
has
admitted that there was a tank for storing
water
and
buckets were lying. Meaning
thereby
the
respondent was allegedly
watering
the
fruit trees by pouring water with the help of buckets. There
was
no
perennial source of water. In that regard the reference court concluded that the irrigation
facility
was
scanty. AW-2
has
further
deposed that there could be 90 fruit trees in one killa (equal to one acre). If, only 90 fruits trees can be planted in one killa (one acre), we are at a loss to understand as to how there could be 250 trees or 396
trees
in
7
kanals and 2 marlas of land (less than one acre) that too of B category as is sought to be contended by
the respondent.
9. In view of the
above, it is clear that the High Court has
over
looked
certain material aspects of the evidence before coming to the conclusion. The
High
Court
needs
to
consider
the
entire material
in
proper
perspective afresh. Hence, the matter is to be remitted to the High Court of Punjab &
Haryana
for
fresh disposal in accordance
with
law.
Ordered accordingly, the
matter
is
remitted to the
High
Court.
The impugned judgment is set aside. Appeal stands
disposed
off
accordingly. .................................................J.
(ARUN MISHRA)
.................................................J. (MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR)
New Delhi
Dated: January 19, 2018