IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. RFA No.104 of 2006 Date of Decision : March 24, 2009 Bholi Devi & Ors. …Appellants. Versus: State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellant: Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Advocate vice Mr. D.N. Ronta, Advocate. For respondent No.1. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl.A.G. with Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl.A.G. and Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy.A.G. For respondent No.5 : Mr. N. K. Thakur, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J (Oral). The original claimant Shri Nandu @ Nand Singh has filed the present appeal assailing the impugned award dated 22.10.2005, passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla (H.P.) in RBT/FTC No. 30-S/4 of 2004/99 titled as Nandu @ Nand Singh v. State of H. P. & others. For the public purpose, namely, ‘construction of Chowkia-Bodhna-Neoti road in Tehsil Chopal, claimants land comprising of khasra No.629/46/1, measuring 1.7 bigha situate in Chak Bodhna, Pargana Chanju, Tehsil Chopal, Distt. Shimla, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 was acquired vide Notification dated 5.9.1996 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), which was published in the H. P. Rajpatra on 19.10.1996. The Collector, Land Acquisition passed his Award on 20.8.1997 and awarded compensation of Rs.19,665.08 paise. Feeling aggrieved of the same, the claimants filed Land Reference Petition under Section 18 of the Act. The claimant restricted his claim with regard to 27 apple trees which were uprooted on the acquired land for which no compensation was awarded by the Collector. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Court below framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the compensation assessed by the LAC in award qua trees (apple plants) is inadequate and if so, what is just and adequate compensation? …...OPA 2.Whether the petitioner had become owner in possession of the acquired land by way of adverse possession? …..OPA” Opportunity to lead evidence was afforded to the parties. In all claimant examined himself as PW-1, Shri Gita Ram Sharma (PW-2), Shri Ram Lal (PW-3), Shri Sindhia (PW-4), Shri Yash Pal (PW-5), Shri Prem Singh (PW-6), Shri Nandu (PW- 7), Shri Nain Singh (PW-8) and Shri Moti Ram (PW-9). In rebuttal, the respondents examined Shri Mast Ram, Patwari, LAO, Winter Field, Shimla as RW-1. 3 Appreciating the material on record, the Court below came to the conclusion that 27 apple plants on the acquired land were in existence for which no compensation was paid by the respondents. Keeping in view the decision rendered by this Court in Collector, LAC Mandi vs. Karam Singh (Latest HLJ 2000 H.P. 694) and the Governmental instructions for separately assessing and calculating compensation for the fruit trees, on the acquired land, the Court took into account the Harbans Singh Formula, and increased the base price index (of 1961) by 400% and consequently assessed the amount of compensation to be Rs.83,840/-. Claimants were held entitled to the compensation. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded. The State has not only accepted the award but in principal admitted that compensation for the plants can be determined on the basis of Harbans Singh Formula which is uniformly followed in the State for determining the compensation for fruit growing trees. This Court in Secretary, HPPWD & Ors. v. Tunglu {2008(3) SLC 493}, while considering the earlier decision of the Court in Karam Singh (supra) has held as under:- “I have perused the award passed by the Collector and the compensation for the trees has been separately assessed and awarded. Before the Court below the State counsel fairly conceded that the determination of the compensation was on the basis of the H. P. Land Records Manual and ‘Harbans Singh Formula’ as contained in Article ‘the Evaluation of Fruit Trees, Basic 4 Principles and Method. The assessment of the tree was got carried out on the basis of the price index which was prevalent in the year 1966. Taking into account the considerable increase of more than 600% on the price index, the Court below enhanced the compensation by six times and awarded a sum of Rs.1,71,540/- instead of Rs.28,590/-. From the award, it is clear that the increase in the price index was not considered while determining the amount of compensation.” In the present case, the existence of 27 trees is not in dispute. Same, in any event, stands proved through the statements of PW-5 & PW-6. Damage to the apple trees was got assessed through the Horticulture Department Officer of the State vide report Ext.PW-6/A. According to the same, the value of the plants as on the date of the acquisition of the land was Rs.20,960/-. PW-6 has, however, stated that assessment was carried out on the basis of Harbans Singh Formula, which considered price index of the year 1966. Therefore, in effect compensation was determined on the basis of the value as on 1961 whereas the acquisition is of the year 1996. PW-2 an exert from the Labour Department has proved on record the increase in the price index between the year 1966. It is more than 900% which is evident from report (Ext.PW-2/A). The Court below took into account the same but, however, allowed the increase of the basic price by only 400%, which in fact was relevant for the year 1985. Admittedly, Notification acquiring the land was published in the H. P. 5 Rajpatra on 19.10.1996. Hence, I see no reason as to why the price index as applicable for the year 1996 be not applied to the present case. Accordingly, the increase of 900% on the basic price as assessed by the Horticulture Department of the State is allowed. The petitioner shall thus be entitled to compensation of Rs.20960 x 900 = Rs.1,88,640/- instead of Rs.83,840/-. Needless to add, the petitioner shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits on the enhanced amount of compensation in accordance with Law. Mr. Dhaulta has also pressed for the enhancement of the market value of the land. Compensation @ Rs.1,35,000/- per bigha is claimed. I have seen the record. Land Reference Petition pertains to only 27 apple trees, which is not disputed by Mr. Dhaulta. Hence, I see no reason to enhance the awarded amount with respect to the land. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed. The impugned award is modified to the aforesaid extent. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. March 24, 2009. (rana)