IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RFA No. 345 of 2005 Date of Decision : June 23, 2009 Sh. Pratap Chauhan Appellant. Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh, through Secretary (PWD), Govt. of H.P., Shimla-2 and another Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant : Mr. B. M. Chauhan, Advocate, for the appellant. For the respondents : Mr. R. K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. Advocate General and Mr. J.S. Rana, Astt. Advocate General for the respondents. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The claimant has filed the appeal assailing the award dated 10.8.2005 passed by District Judge, Shimla in Land Reference No. 9-S/4 of 2003, titled as Shri Pratap Chauhan versus State of H.P. and another. The challenge is limited to the ground that the ratio of law laid down by this Court in Durgavati versus Nathpa Jhakhri Power Project Corporation and another, Latest HLJ 2008 (2) 1328 (HP) and 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 State of H.P. & others versus Nihaloo ram & others, Latest HLJ 2008 (1) 208 (HP) wherein the earlier judgment of this Court passed in Collector, LAC Mandi vs. Karam Singh and others, Latest HLJ 2000 (HP) 694, has been considered, was not followed and the compensation towards the fruit bearing apple trees has not been correctly determined. Necessary facts for the adjudication of the present appeal are as under. For the public purpose namely construction of “Daulat Ram Chauhan Link Road”, claimant’s land situated in village Chaak Dhalli, Tehsil Kotkhai, Distt. Shimla, H.P. was acquired by the State Government. The acquisition proceedings commenced with the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which was published in the H.P. Rajpatra on 10.12.1999. The Collector passed his Award No. 20 of 1996, dated 27.2.2001. The Collector awarded compensation for the acquired land but however did not award any compensation for the trees situated thereupon. Aggrieved by the same the claimant herein, filed land reference petition under Section 18 of the Act claiming higher compensation for the land as also the trees situated on the acquired land. The Court below framed the following issues: 3 “1. Whether the petitioner has not been paid just and adequate compensation in respect of the acquired property? ….OPP 2. In case issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled? OPP 3. Relief.” The Court below after affording due opportunity to lead evidence awarded compensation as under: 14 apple trees Rs. 8,628/- 10 non fruit bearing trees Rs. 16,198/- The market value determined by the Collector was maintained as it is. Mr. B. M. Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellant has invited my attention to the ratio of law laid down by this Court in Durgavati versus Nathpa Jhakhri Power Project Corporation and another, Latest HLJ 2008 (2) 1328 (HP) and State of H.P. & others versus Nihaloo Ram & others, Latest HLJ 2008 (1) 208 (HP). It is an undisputed position that in the State of Himachal Pradesh, the compensation for the fruit bearing trees on the acquired land is separately assessed and the same is determined on the basis of the standing order No. 28 and “the Harbans Singh Formula”. The Land Acquisition Collector is the agent of the State Government who makes offer to the claimants of the amount of compensation awarded in the awards. The standing order No. 28 issued by the Financial Commissioner is binding on the State as has been held by this Court 4 in Collector, LAC, Mandi versus Karam Singh and others, Latest HLJ 2000 (HP) 694. Harbans Singh Formula is framed on the basis of price index prevalent for the year 1966. The State itself has been awarding compensation by giving the benefit of the increase on the said basis. This has been the consistent view of this Court as is evident from the decisions noticed herein above. In the instant case the Court below has not given the benefit of increase of the price index for the reason that the date for determining the compensation can only be after the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. I am afraid the reasoning adopted by the Court below is faulty. No doubt the relevant date for determining the market value of the acquired land and awarding interest thereupon is the date of publication of the notification in the H.P. Gazette. But however, here the claimants was seeking enhancement of compensation towards the fruit bearing plants. Obviously the value of the trees has to be determined as on the date of the initiation of the acquisition proceedings. The basis, however, for determining such compensation adopted by the State itself, has been the formula commonly known as the Harbans Singh Formula. The said formula is based on the consumer price index as applicable in the year 1966. Therefore, corresponding increase between the year 1966 up to the date of the initiation of the acquisition proceedings has to be given 5 to the claimants for determining the true, just, fair and reasonable compensation/value of the trees. In the present case Shri. Geeta Ram (PW-1) has proved the consumer price index Ext.P-1 from which it is evident that between the year 1966 and the time of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act i.e. December, 1999 the increase in the price index is by 1276 percentage. Shri. Rajeshwar Parmar (PW-4) has proved the assessment report Ext.P-4 from which it is evident that, Rs. 8628/- being the value of 14 apple trees was determined on the basis of the Harbans Singh Formula. Consequently the benefit of price index needs to be given to the appellant. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances and more particularly the age of the trees, in my view the increase should be by seven times. Consequently the claimant shall be entitled to Rs. 8628 X 7 = Rs. 60,396/-. The impugned award is modified accordingly. The claimant shall be entitled to all statutory benefits on the enhanced amount of compensation, in accordance with the law, from the date of the publication of the notification and in conformity with the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Sunder Versus Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 211. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. June 23, 2009 (PK)