vil Appeal Nos 1274 to 1278 of 1984
From the Judgment and Order dated 27581 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in RFA Nos
688 to 692 of 1979
Rajinder Sachar and KC Dua for the Appellants
SP Goel Rana Ranjit Singh and Mahabir Singh for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY J
These appeals on special leave are directed against the judgment and order dated May 27 1981 passed in RFA Nos
688 to 592 of 1979 and 1112 of 1979 by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
The short ques tion raised in these appeals is whether the appellants are entitled to any compensation for nursery plants existing on the land at the time of acquisition as well as at the time of notification published under Section 4 of the Land Acqui sition Act 419 1894
Secondly whether the valuation made in respect of the mother plants is low and the same needs to be increased in accordance with the report of the Horticulture Expert
The facts of these appeals in short are as follows
A notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 was published on March 24 1971 for acquisition of the lands in question in village Faridabad Hadbust No 123 Tehsil Ballabgarh District Gurgaon for a public purpose viz for planned development of residential sector No 19 by the Haryana Government
Thereafter a declaration under Section 6 of the said Act was published vide Notification No LAC 71NTLA376 dated January 18 1972 in Haryana Gov ernment Extraordinary Gazette
The Government declared that the Government was satisfied that the said land was needed at public expenses for a public purpose namely for the planned development in the area of this village Faridabad
Thereafter a notice under Section 9 and 10 was issued call ing upon the owners and other interested persons to file their claims in respect of the interest in the land and also other particulars as regards their claims for compensation for such interest
The owners of the land and other inter ested persons filed their claims demanding compensation for the land  Rs35 per sq
and also claimed compensation for the nursery plants and potted plants in the land ac quired
The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation in respect of the land acquired  Rs900 per Biswa
The Land Acquisition Collector held that the mother plants and trees were irremovable and as such he assessed the value thereof at Rs241576
He also awarded the shifting charges for the shifting of potted plants amounting to Rs 177320 paise together with compulsory charges  15 of the amount award ed
This award was made by the Land Acquisition Collector on February 22 1975
The possession of the acquired land was taken by the Government
The Land Acquisition Collector also granted six months  time or any such further period as extended by the Government to enable the appellants to remove the nursery plants as well as the potted plants from the acquired land
The Collector further stated in the award that the nursery plants can be removed from the land and the same be sold by the owners to the customers
So no compensa tion was awarded in respect of these plants as well as in respect of the potted plants
The appellants filed five claim petitions being Petition Nos
19185 to 19585 of 197378 in the Court of the Addi tional District Judge Gurgaon
The 2nd Additional District Judge Gurgaon after hearing 420 the parties and also considering the evidences enhanced the rate of compensation of the acquired land C Rs 10 per sq
It has also been held that the appellants will be enti tled to double the compensation for trees and plants as given by the Land Acquisition Collector
He also ordered that the appellants shall be entitled to solatium at the rate of 15 on the enhanced amount of compensation on these two items
In all other respects the impugned order made by the Land Acquisition Collector was upheld
He further or dered that the appellants will be entitled to recover inter est  6 from the date of compensation to the date of reali zation of the enhanced amount to be paid to them and the appellants shall also be entitled to recover the proportion ate costs of the petitions from the Government
The appellants filed RFA Nos
688 to 692 of 1979 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
The High Court fixed the value of the acquired land considering the potentiality of the land  Rs 16 per sq
The total area of the land acquired in these appeals being 1138 acres at the rate of Rs 16 per sq
the value of the land acquired comes to Rs88 lakhs
The Land Acquisition Collector awarded a sum of Rs241576 for the trees which value had been doubled by the Court below
The High Court held that no case was made out for doubling the value of the trees in the evidence recorded before remand
It has been further observed by the High Court that the appellants  own case was that most of their income was from potted plants flowers and nursery plants the potted plants gave the maximum income as was shown by the vouchers produced by the appellants on record
The potted plants had been taken away by the appellants after acquisition
Similar was the position of nursery plants
The High Court therefore held that the value awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector would be for the trees and since no justification was made the Court below was in error in doubling the value of the trees
The High Court therefore valued the acquired land at the enhanced rate of Rs 16 per sq
 for the trees the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector was directed to be paid to the appellants and the enhancement awarded in re spect of trees by the Court below was set aside
It was further ordered that the appellants would be entitled to solatium at the rate of 15 per cent and interest at the rate of 6 per annum from the date of taking of possession till payment thereof
The appeals were thus disposed of
Against this judgment and decree passed in RFA Nos
688 to 692 of 1979 the appellants filed five Special Leave Petitions before this Court
On February 27 1984 this Court granted Special Leave 421 confined only to the compensation for mother plants and nursery plants
Mr Rajinder Sacbar learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has made two fold submissions before this Court
His first submission is that the Land Acquisition Collector as well as the Courts below were wrong in not granting any compensation for the nursery plants
Nursery plants were grown in the nursery on the acquired land for the purpose of rearing them for a certain period and there after selling those plants to the customers on taking out the same from the nursery
There has been an inspection and a list was prepared of the various varieties of fruits and flower plants existing on the acquired land at the time of acquisition
He further submitted that the value of these various plants has been assessed by Shri Som Dutta Diwan Deputy Director HorticultureVegetable Haryana Chandi garh who was requested to assess the value of all sorts of trees
Copies of the assessment made by him had been filed before the Land Acquisition Collector and it will be evident from the said assessment lists that each variety of trees has been assessed separately with reference to the total number of those trees
It has been submitted by Mr Sachar in this connection that these nursery plants if taken out of the land will die after two three days
The appellants have got no other land where they could plant these plants and keep them alive
It has therefore been submitted by him that the High Court was wrong in refusing to assess the value of the nursery plants and to award compensation in respect of the same
Mr Sachar next submitted that the compensation awarded with regard to the mother trees by the Land Acquisition Collector has been made arbitrarily without reference to the market price of these trees
It has been further submitted by referring to the judgment and order of the 2nd Additional District Judge Gurgaon that the 2nd Additional District Judge held that the
appellants were entitled to double the compensation under the head value of trees and plants  as assessed by the Land Acquisition Col lector
The High Court arbitrarily and wrongly rejected this on the mere ground that there was no justification for doubling the compensation as awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector in respect of the mother trees and plants
It has therefore been submitted by Mr Sachar that the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector in respect of the mother trees should be doubled and the com pensation for the nursery plants should also be assessed on the basis of the value of the plants as assessed by the Deputy Director of Horticulture
422 Mr SP Goel appearing for the respondent State has submitted that the land acquired was not treated as an agriculture land in assessing the market value of the same
It has been taken as urban land and considering its potenti alities the High Court assessed the value of the land  Rs 16 per sq
In such circumstances the value of the land being assessed on considering its potentiality the question of valuation of the mother trees as well as of the nursery plants does not at all arise
The valuation of the mother trees can at best be assessed at the value assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector
There is therefore no ground for interference with the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector and upheld by the High Court
It has been next submitted by the learned counsel for the State that the nursery plants are planted and grown for the purpose of selling the same to the customers after taking them out from the land
These nursery plants are never planted for the purpose of growing them into big trees or mother plants
The High Court has rightly held that like the potted plants these nursery plants can easily be removed from the nursery as the purpose of growing these plants is to sell the same to the customers
These plants can be removed and sufficient time had been granted by the State by permitting the appellants to remove these plants from the acquired land
It has therefore been submitted that the High Court has rightly rejected the claim of the appellants for compensation in respect of the nursery plants
We have considered in depth the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties and we have also considered very carefully the weighty reasonings given by the High Court as well as by the Land Acquisition Collector
It is obvious that the land acquired though agriculture land was taken for assessment of its market value not as agricul ture land but as land with high potentialities ie as urban land and therefore the market value of these lands has been fixed after considering its potential value  Rs 16 per sq
The appellants did not at all dispute this value and on the other hand they withdrew the entire compensation award for the value of these lands
In these circumstances we find that there is much substance in the submissions made on behalf of the State that the mother trees should be valued as wood and the value has been rightly assessed as such by the Land Acquisition Collector in his award and the same has been upheld by the High Court
Moreover the find ings of the Collector that the nursery plants can be taken out of the land and sold to the customers like potted plants and as such no compensation can be awarded is in our consid ered opinion quite in accordance with law
In these cir 423 cumstances we do not find any infirmity or arbitrariness in the findings arrived at by the High Court and as such there is no merit in the contentions made on behalf of the appel lants in these appeals
We therefore uphold the findings of the High Court and dismiss the appeals without any costs
PSS Appeals dis missed


Summary:
The appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge on three counts and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and a fine of Rs200 under Sections 148 323149 and 302149 IPC
The appellants preferred an appeal against the order of conviction and sentence
Dis missing the appeal the High Court clarified that their convictions were on six counts and altered the fine awarded under Section 302149 IPC from Rs200 to Rs5000 in respect of each appellant per count ie Rs30000 per appellant
Hence the appellants preferred appeal by special leave in this Court limited to the question of enhancement of fine only
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of High Court enhancing the fine this Court HELD It is clear from a conjoint reading of Sections 377 386 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 that if the State Government is aggrieved about the inade quacy of the sentence it can prefer an appeal under Section 3771 of the Code
The failure on the part of the State Government to prefer an appeal does not however preclude the High Court from exercising suo motu power of revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code since the High Court itself is empowered to call for the record of the proceeding of any court subordinate to it
But before the High Court can exercise its revisional jurisdiction to enhance the sentence it is imperative that the convict is put on notice and given an opportunity of being heard on the question of sentence either in person or through his advo cate
The revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised to the prejudice of the convict without putting him on guard that it is proposed to enhance the sentence imposed by the Trial Court
515A D 513 In the present case the appeal was filed under Section 3742 of the Code by the convicts against the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge
No appeal was filed by the State under Section 3771 of the Code against the sentence awarded by the trial court for the offence under Section 302149 IPC on the ground of its inadequacy
Nor did the High Court exercise suo motu revisional powers under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code
If the High Court was minded to enhance the sentence the proper course was to exercise suo motu powers under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code by issuing notice of enhancement and hearing the convicts on the question of inadequacy of sentence
Without following such procedure it was not open to the High Court in the appeal filed by the convicts to enhance the sentence by enhancing the fine
The High Court clearly acted without jurisdiction
515D F