State Of Punjab And Ors vs Thuru Ram

[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 &

Signature Not Verified Haryana at Digitally signed by ASHWANI KUMAR Date: 2018.01.19 14:13:07 IST Reason: Chandigarh in

R.F.A. No. 2435 2

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 3

Hydel Channel.

A notification

under Section 4

of the Land

Acquisition Act,

1894

(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 4

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 5

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 6

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 7

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 8

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 9

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 10

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 11

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 12

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.

13

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 14

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 15

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 16

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 17

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