RFA No.6412 of 2011(O&M) #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No.6412 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: 13.10.2011 State of Haryana and others ....Appellants Versus Sukhbir Singh ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. M.S. Sindhu, Addl.A.G, Haryana for the appellants. JASWANT SINGH, J The State of Haryana and its officers have filed the present appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) challenging the award dated 1.9.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa in a reference petition under Section 18 of the Act. Facts of the case are that the State of Haryana acquired the land under the provisions of the Act for a public purpose, namely, for construction of a Miner by the Irrigation Department including the land measuring 3 kanal, 8 marla belonging to the respondent-land owner. Learned D.R.O-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Sirsa gave his award on 30.1.2004. Thereafter, the respondent requested for compensation in respect of the trees standing on the land but the same was declined by the appellant and ultimately a reference under Section 18 of the Act dated 2.1.2006 was filed and the same was referred to learned RFA No.6412 of 2011(O&M) #2# Additional District Judge, Sirsa. After taking into rival submissions of both the parties, the learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa partly allowed the reference in favour of respondent and granted the benefit of Rs.47764/- as a market value along with other statutory benefits i.e total Rs.70,849.93/- rounded as Rs.70,900/- along with interest at the rate of Rs.9% for one year w.e.f 9.12.2004 and for subsequent period 15% till its realization, hence the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the impugned award passed by the learned Additional District Judge is wholly erroneous being without any evidence and as such the same is based on the surmises and conjectures, hence liable to be set aside. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the paper book, this Court does not find any merit in the present appeal and the same deserves dismissal. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the award in respect of the land owned by respondent was passed by the learned Collector on 30.1.2004 and in this award, it was mentioned that some land owners have demanded compensation for the tube-well, dhani trees etc coming in the way of the said Miner and their application had been sent to the concerned Department for valuation of respective trees etc but the report is still awaited. Therefore, it was recorded in the award that a supplementary award in respect of trees etc will be pronounced later on for the compensation of trees etc if required. It transpires that vide letter dated 24.5.2004, the District RFA No.6412 of 2011(O&M) #3# Forest Officer, Sirsa on the basis of his demarcation report (Ex.P.8) reported that the value of nine trees belonging to the respondent was Rs.47764/-. Thereafter, it seems that some other reports were also sought as the respondent-claimant was alleging that some more trees were standing on the land but ultimately vide letter dated 9.12.2005, learned Collector declined the prayer of the claimant/land owner for grant of compensation of his trees. In these circumstances, the reference under Section 18 of the Act was made. The learned Reference Court while making the impugned award has framed as many as four issues and issues No.1 & 2 being material are reproduced below: “1. Whether there existed trees in the acquired land? If so what was the prevailing market value of trees falling in the acquired land on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act published on 17.11.2003?OPP 2. Whether petitioner is entitled to enhancement of compensation, as prayed for?OPP” While recording findings on issue Nos.1 & 2, learned Additional District Judge came to the conclusion that in view of the demarcation report (Ex.P.8) at the time of issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Act, nine trees were standing on the land of the respondent and the letter dated 24.5.2004 (Ex.P.2) proves the valuation of the said trees for a sum of Rs.47764/- and observed as under: “Since the Award dated 30.1.2004 passed by the learned Collector mentioned therein that supplementary Award qua the trees etc, if need be, shall be pronounced later on after RFA No.6412 of 2011(O&M) #4# receipt of the report from the concerned departments, in my opinion, the petitioner has successfully proved on record that Nine trees, as shown by the demarcation report Ex.P8, were standing upon his acquired land, on the date of the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. The letter Ex.P2 shows the valuation of the said trees as Rs.47,764/-. Hence, both the instant issues are partly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents, thereby holding that at the relevant time i.e on 30.5.2003. Nine trees, as shown by the demarcation report Ex.P8, belonging to the petitioner, were standing upon his acquired land and he is accordingly entitled to the compensation to the tune of Rs.47,764/- as market value of the said Nine trees under Section 23(1) of the Act.” In these circumstances, the learned Reference Court has rightly assessed the market value of nine trees in favour of the respondent and granted the benefit of other statutory provisions of the Act and thereby granting total compensation to the tune of Rs.70849.93/- rounded as Rs.70900/- plus interest as admissible under the Act. This Court does not find any illegality or perversity worth interference under Section 54 of the Act to entertain the present appeal. Dismissed. No further orders are required to be passed on the applications for condonation of delay in filing as well as re-filing of the appeal. October 13, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE