R.F.A. No. 1954 of 1994 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 1954 of 1994 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.9.2010 Avtar Singh @ Jagir Singh and others .. Appellants v. State of Punjab and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. K. K. Mehta, Senior Advocate with Mr. M. S. Kohli, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. ... Rajesh Bindal J. The land owners are in appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation for the trees standing on the acquired land. Briefly, the facts of the case are that land of the appellants, situated in village Sohana, Hadbast No. 35, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar was acquired. Trees were standing thereon. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') vide supplementary award dated 18.1.1989, assessed the market value of the fruit bearing trees. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the trees at ` 44,986/-. It is this award of the learned court below, which is impugned in the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned award in the present case deserves to be set aside and the matter remitted back to the learned court below for the reason that in terms of settled position of law, the process for determination of market value of the land on which fruit bearing trees were standing cannot be split into two parts. The same was required to be assessed as an orchard instead of plain agricultural land. There could not be two awards – one pertaining to the land and the other pertaining to the fruit bearing trees standing thereon. On a specific query by the court as to whether proceedings for determination of fair value of the land have attained finality or not, the answer was R.F.A. No. 1954 of 1994 [2] in positive. Learned counsel for the appellants admitted that proceedings for determination of fair value of the land have already attained finality. In the alternative, he submitted that number of fruit bearing trees standing on the acquired land were much more, however, on account of the fact that inspection was carried out by the authorities after three years of acquisition, the number was reduced. He further submitted that the land owners got the inspection of the site carried out through an independent expert, who in his report stated that there were 62 guava trees, 4 mango trees, 4 shehtoot trees and 2 lemon trees on the acquired land, whereas the State authorities, who carried out the inspection more than 3 years after the acquisition, found that there were only 37 guava trees, 4 mango trees and one shehtoot tree. The authorities having delayed the inspection of the spot, which should have been done immediately at the time of acquisition of land, the report produced by the land owners should be accepted and if there is any delay in the inspection by the authorities, the land owners should be given benefit thereof. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the market value of the trees standing on the acquired land having been assessed in terms of Dr. Nijjar's formula, which is accepted as a principle for determination of fair value of the fruit bearing trees, no fault can be found with the impugned award. As far as number of trees is concerned, the submission was that the report of a private expert produced by the land owners cannot be relied upon for the reason that before carrying out such an inspection, no notice was issued to the department concerned and no representative thereof was present at that time. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. As far as contention of learned counsel for the appellants that the matter needs to be remitted for fresh consideration on the ground that value of the land was required to be assessed along with the orchard thereof and there could not be two separate awards, I do not find any merit therein. It is not disputed that proceedings for valuation of the land have already attained finality. Such an argument could possibly be raised when the proceedings for valuation of the land were pending and not after the same have attained finality and it is only the award pertaining to fruit bearing trees standing on the acquired land, which is pending consideration. As far as number of fruit bearing trees is concerned, even in that argument of learned counsel for the appellants, I do not find any merit. It is only the report of a private expert, which is sought to be relied upon by the land owners to justify their claim for higher number of trees standing on the acquired land. It R.F.A. No. 1954 of 1994 [3] could not be pointed out that before such an inspection was carried out any notice was issued to the State authorities so that their representative could be present at the spot. Though this court cannot appreciate the action of the State authorities, whereby they carried out the inspection of the spot for the purpose of assessing the number of trees standing on the acquired land nearly three years after the acquisition, but still the fact remains that the evidence led by the land owners is not found to be trust worthy. Accordingly, the number of trees, as have been assessed by the learned court below, cannot be faulted with. As far as assessment of value thereof is concerned, the same has already been done as per the estimate prepared by the witness produced by the land owners, which is as per Dr. Nijjar's formula. Accordingly, the same also does not call for any interference. For the reasons mentioned above, the present appeal is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 21.9.2010 mk