IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RFA No. 174 of 2004 Date of Decision: 20th November, 2008 State of H.P. and another Appellants Versus Smt. Rikhi Devi and others Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting1? Yes/ For the appellants: Mr. R.K.Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr.Romesh Verma, Advocate, for respondents No. 2,8 and 11. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The respondents (hereinafter referred to as the claimants) land comprised in Khasra No. 170, measuring 011-11 Hects., situate in Village Nanasari, Post Office Nankheri, Tehsil Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, H.P., was acquired by the State for construction of Nankhari – Delath road. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1854 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued on 21.9.1993, which was lastly published in H.P. Rajpatra on 25.9.1993. In terms of Section 11 Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? 2 of the Act, the Collector passed the Award in Case No. SML-7/92 on 31.1.1995, determining the market value of the land to be as under:- Sl.No. Classification of land Rates of land per Bigha 1. Bakhal Awal 5963.00 2. Bakhal Doem 2236.00 3. Banjar Kadim, Degar, Ghasni & Gar Mumkin 745.00 With regard to fruit and non-fruit bearing plants standing on the acquired land, the Collector got the assessment carried out from the Experts of the Horticulture Department and separately awarded the compensation. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issue was framed by the Court below:- 1. Whether the Collector Land Acquisition had inadequately assessed the market value of the land under acquisition? OPP Thereafter opportunity was afforded to the parties to adduce evidence. Appreciating the material on record (oral and documentary), the claimants’ petition was partly allowed. It was held that the Collector had correctly assessed the market value of the acquired land. It was also held that there was no evidence to prove that other than the acquired land plants and trees had been damaged by the State. However, compensation with regard to the number of plants, which were actually uprooted was enhanced and it was held that the claimant was entitled to compensation 3 with respect to 52 apple plants instead of 29 apple plants as determined by the Collector. Accordingly, instead of Rs.23,345/- as determined by the Collector, the compensation was enhanced and in all a sum of Rs.41,860/- was directed to be paid to the claimant alongwith statutory benefits in accordance with law. The State has filed the appeal assailing this award dated 22.2.2003 passed by District Judge, Kinnaur Civil Division at Rampur Bushahr, H.P., in Land Ref. Petition No. 02 of 1999/97, titled as Shri Keshav Ram (deceased through LRs) and others vs. State of H.P. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In order to prove the case of enhancement of compensation with regard to plants the claimants have examined Shri Jawahar Kaith (PW-1), Shri Darshan Dass (PW-2), Shri A.D.Bhaluni (PW-3) and Shri Ishwar Chand (PW-4). They have also proved the consumer price index (Ext. PW-1/A) and also the assessment report (Ext.PW-3/A) carried out by the Horticulture Department at the behest of the State with regard to 52 trees. In rebuttal, the respondents have examined Shri Balak Ram (RW-1), who has proved the average sale price (Ext.RW-1/A) maintained by the revenue department. The fact that on the acquired land i.e. Khasra No.170, 52 number of apple plants were in existence at the time of taking over of the possession is evident from the statement of PW-4, who being posted as the Executive Engineer in H.P. PWD of the State, deposed that the work of the road was carried out between 1.1.1988 and 31.1.1988 and as per the Measurement Book (M.B.) at page 1732, 52 number of trees 4 were uprooted between 12.1.1988 and 20.1.1988. Ext.PW-3/A also evidences that 40 + 12 = 52 number of trees were in existence on Khasra No.170 belonging to the claimants. The fact that the State itself had got the damages assessed through the experts, i.e., officials of the Horticulture Department of the State is evident from the statement of PW-3, who has proved the assessment report Ext.PW-3/A. Further in an Annexure annexed to the award passed by the Collector, it is clearly mentioned in column No. 8 that on the acquired land there were 52 trees, but however as per the criteria, compensation was restricted to 29 plants and as such only a sum of Rs.23,345/- was awarded as compensation for the same. Even claimant (PW-2) has deposed about the number of trees which were planted on the acquired land and had to be ultimately uprooted. Importantly, the appellants’ witness is conspicuously silent about this aspect of the matter. His deposition is primarily to justify the determination of the market value of the land by the Collector, which is not an issue here. From Ext.PW-3/A it is evident that for 52 plants, Rs.41,860/- was assessed as damages by the experts. In my view, the Court below has rightly enhanced the compensation with regard to the plants which were found on the acquired land and were ultimately uprooted. There is nothing on record to show the criteria or the basis on which the Collector had restricted the claim to 29 trees only. This Court in Collector, LAC, Mandi vs. Karam Singh and others, Latest HLJ 2000 (HP) 694, has held that the compensation for the fruit bearing plants can be awarded on the basis of Harbans Singh Formula, 1966. 5 The claimants have not filed any appeal/cross-objections or arguments at the time of hearing of the matter with regard to enhancement of compensation determined by the Court below due to increase of price index, hence this question has not been considered. The Court below has considered the material in its entirety while arriving at its conclusion. I see no error, illegality, irregularity in the impugned award. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 20th November, 2008 (Sanjay Karol) (C) Judge.