1 RFA No. 1490 of 1992 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH --- Regular First Appeal No.1490 of 1992 Date of Decision: 30.7.2009 Iqbal Singh (since deceased) through his legal representative Makhan Singh --- Appellant Versus State of Punjab and another --- Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL --- PRESENT: Mr. P.K. Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. O.P. Dabla, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for respondents --- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. The appellant-claimant is aggrieved against the quantum of compensation that has been awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector and maintained by the Reference Court in respect of his one house and trees which were standing on the acquired land. The facts necessary for appreciation of the issue need be first noticed: Land measuring 52.84 acres situated in the revenue estate of village Dugri was acquired by the State of Punjab vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) on 30.11.1982, for the construction of Sutlej- 2 RFA No. 1490 of 1992 Yamuna-Link Canal. The award in respect of the said land was given by the Land Acquisition Collector on 4.10.1983. It was submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that in respect of the compensation with regard to the acquired land, separate appeal was filed. But no award was made in respect of trees, tube-well and structure etc. standing thereon. Later on, a supplementary award was, however, rendered on 23.7.1986 in respect of the trees and the structure etc. It may be noticed that the Land Acquisition Collector on appreciation of the evidence on record, had awarded compensation for the house including the value of the hand-pump and the electric installations to the tune of Rs. 46,900/-. Besides, a sum of Rs. 2,000/- was awarded to each family as compensation to meet expenses for change of residence. A sum of Rs. 43905.50 was also awarded for the trees standing on the acquired land vide his award dated 23.7.1986. The land-owner claimed reference under Section 18 of the Act and the Reference Court vide its judgment dated 28.1.1992 impugned in this appeal, upheld the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that Land Acquisition Collector as well as the Reference Court had not granted adequate compensation to the landowner-appellant in respect of the house as well as the trees standing on the acquired land. Referring to the valuation of the house and the trees, learned 3 RFA No. 1490 of 1992 counsel placed reliance on the site plan, Exhibit P-1 and the estimate, Exhibit P-2 submitted by PW-1 Som Nath Saini wherein he had assessed the value of the house and the hand-pump installed in the acquired land at Rs. 70,112.85. The counsel while assailing the quantum of compensation for the trees asserted that Jasbir Singh, PW-2 (wrongly recorded as Jasmit Singh while recording statement before the Reference Court) who had visited the site of the garden on 1.8.1986 had estimated the cost of the fruit trees standing thereon at Rs. 92,500/-. The counsel, thus, vehemently submitted that the valuations submitted by the aforesaid two witnesses with regard to the house and the trees standing on the acquired land could not have been validly ignored by the Land Acquisition Collector or the Reference Court. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued that the award given by the Land Acquisition Collector which has been duly upheld by the Reference Court is just and proper and adequate compensation in that respect as admissible under the provisions of the Act has been awarded to the appellant and, thus, no enhancement in that matter is called for. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and have gone through the record with their assistance. The Reference Court, while assessing the value of the house which included the value of the hand-pump and the electric installations as well, relied upon the testimony of Sat Pal, Junior Engineer, RW-1, who made evaluation of the above at Rs. 46,900/- 4 RFA No. 1490 of 1992 and the assessments made by him, Exhibits R-1 and R-2. Besides, a sum of Rs. 2,000/- was awarded to each family as compensation to meet expenses for change of residence. The Reference Court accepted the estimates given by Sat Pal RW-1 and ignored the assessment made by Som Nath Saini, PW-1. The Reference Court, as revealed from the impugned judgment, did not attach any weight to the assessments made by PW-1, on the ground that it was discerned from the cross-examination of that witness that he was prosecuted in a corruption case and was suspended also, though later on acquitted in that case and was retired from service prematurely. The Reference Court further observed in the context that any expert witness was generally inclined to favour the party which had engaged him. It was also observed that more so, the claimant, i.e. the appellant herein, had not been able to assail the estimate prepared by Sat Pal RW-1 who had assessed the value of the house at Rs. 46,900/-. On a consideration of the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, no fault can be found with the approach adopted by the Reference Court while paying attention to the assessments made by Sat Pal, RW-1, and not relying upon the estimates drawn by Som Nath Saini, PW-1 for the reasons noticed above. Nothing could even be shown before this Court also, by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the course chosen by the Reference Court was in any way illegal or that any other evidence indicating the value of the house higher than the one assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector and approved by the 5 RFA No. 1490 of 1992 Reference Court was available on record and the same had not been taken into account or had been mis-read. The valuation of the house including hand-pump and the electric installations does not call for any interference. As far as the valuation of the trees standing on the acquired land is concerned, the Reference Court placed reliance on the testimony of two witnesses, namely, Jasbir Singh PW-2 and Baldev Singh, Horticulture Inspector, RW-2. PW-2 Jasbir Singh assessed the value of the trees at Rs. 92,500/-, vide report Exhibit P- 4. But the Reference Court for assessing the value of the trees relied upon the testimony of Baldev Singh RW-2 who deposed before the Reference Court that he visited the spot on 15.12.1983; counted the trees of the appellant at village Dugri and prepared the estimate, Exhibit R-8, and according to him, he had assessed Rs. 43905.50 as value of 200 guava trees and one mango tree. The Reference Court relied upon the testimony and the estimate given by Baldev Singh RW-2 observing that there was no reason why the assessment made by that witness is not accepted as he had visited the spot much earlier to inspection allegedly carried out by PW-2 Jasbir Singh. It was further noticed to augment support to that view that the land under reference had been acquired vide notification dated 30.11.1982 issued under Section 4 of the Act; the award in respect thereof had been rendered on 4.10.1983 while the supplementary award relating to the trees and house etc. had been given on 23.7.1986. It was also observed that the spot where the trees were alleged to be there, 6 RFA No. 1490 of 1992 according to PW-2 Jasbir Singh, had been inspected even thereafter and in those circumstances, it was recorded that it was difficult to believe if the trees were still in existence at that time. There was another reason for the Reference Court for accepting the report of RW-2 Baldev Singh, as he was the Inspector of the Horticulture Department. In the opinion of this Court as well, no exception can be taken to the view of the Reference Court whereby it approved and affirmed the compensation for the trees as well as the house etc. standing on the acquired land as awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. There is, thus, no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. There will, however, be no orders as to costs. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) July 30, 2009 JUDGE *RKMALIK*