R.F.A.No.740 of 1991 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A.No.740 of 1991 (O&M) Date of Decision 24.07.2009 Norata Ram ......Appellant VERSUS The State of Punjab ......Respondent R.F.A.No.869 of 1991 (O&M) The State of Punjab ......Appellant VERSUS Norata Ram ......Respondent R.F.A.No.741 of 1991 (O&M) Mewa Singh ......Appellant VERSUS State of Punjab ......Respondent R.F.A.No.868 of 1991 (O&M) State of Punjab ......Appellant VERSUS Mewa Singh ......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Ms.Ekta Thakur, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Surender Kapoor, Addl. A.G., Punjab. ***** R.F.A.No.740 of 1991 (O&M) 2 A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): This order of mine shall dispose of four connected R.F.A. Nos.740, 741, 868 and 869 of 1991, filed by the appellants against the award dated 10.12.1990 passed by Additional District Judge, Patiala, whereby the appellate Court had enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.5,10,400/- on account of the price of the trees, grown on the land acquired by the Government, in favour of the appellants-claimants (herein referred as 'the claimants') and against the respondent. 50 bighas 11 biswas of land of claimants was acquired wherein 3 kikkar, one shisham and 1160 eucalyptus trees were grown and the said plants were planted in the year 1981. It has been further pleaded that eucalyptus trees yielded three crops and due to acquisition, their lands have been severed. It was also submitted that by construction of the road, land of the claimants will loose the natural flow of the water to the fields across the road and in case no outlet is provided for the rainy season, then their land will always remain under the dampness. Respondent contested the claim petition by filing the written statement. From pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 07.01.1988:- 1. Whether the compensation awarded for 3 kikkar trees and 1160 eucalyptus trees is inadequate and, if so, to what extent ? OPA 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to claim any extra amount of compensation on account of severance of land and, if so, to what extent ? OPA R.F.A.No.740 of 1991 (O&M) 3 3. Whether the compensation awarded to the claimant for the acquired land is inadequate and if so to what extent ? OPA 4. Relief. On these issues, the claimant examined AW1 Gurdev Singh, AW2 Maya Ram, AW3 Norata Ram-claimant, AW4 Ram Singh. They also tendered copy of the sale deed Ex.P1. To the contrary, the respondent examined Jagir Singh RW1, Sarwan Singh RW2 and Hari Singh RW3. The Additional District Judge, while enhancing the compensation to the tune of Rs.5,10,400/- regarding the trees to the claimants placed reliance on the statement of Gurdev Singh AW1, Maya Ram AW2, Norata Ram-claimant AW3, Ram Singh AW4 wherein they stated that the trees were planted 6 years back and their height was about 25 feet and width was 3 feet. Besides the aforesaid statement, the Court placed reliance on the statement of Ram Singh AW4, who disclosed that in the year 1985, the rate of the wood of that quality was Rs.60/- per quintal. Now, while re-appreciating the evidence, it may be observed that though the Additional District Judge appears to have assessed the compensation while misreading the evidence but I am not sitting in appeal filed by the State. Suffice to say that if evidence of Gurdev Singh AW1 and Maya Ram AW2 is gone into then the same impresses me to hold that the trees were planted only three years back as Gurdev Singh and Maya Ram both made statements in the year 1988 and both of them stated that trees were planted 6 years back which means three years prior to the acquisition. The Court can take judicial notice of the fact that in such short span of time, eucalyptus trees cannot gain such circumference. Anyway, no evidence of any expert has been brought on record who may have surveyed and reported about the R.F.A.No.740 of 1991 (O&M) 4 height, circumference, width and quality of those trees The aforesaid features were the only parameters to assess the actual value of the trees. In the absence of such evidence, the enhancement could not be made. Even, the report Ex.P2, placed on record proves that the trees were planted between 2 to 2½ years back as their age as on 11.07.1985 was given as 2 to 2½ years. Thus, the claimants have failed to bring sufficient evidence on record in order to show if they were entitled to a higher price of the trees than what was determined by the Addl. District Judge. As such no grounds for enhancement are made out. Resultantly, finding no merit in the aforesaid appeals filed by the private parties, the same are hereby dismissed. Since no illegality or much less irregularity was found in the judgment and the market value appears to have been determined on proper appreciation of evidence. Hence the appeals preferred by the State also meet the same fate. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 24.07.2009 mamta-II