IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. RFA No.149 of 2003 Date of Decision : August 26, 2008 Chander Mohan & others …Appellants. Versus: State of H.P. & others …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellants : Mr. G. D. Verma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. B. C. Verma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R. K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A. G. and Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. A.G. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The present appeal arises out of the impugned Award dated 30.10.2002 passed by the District Judge, Kinnaur Civil Division at Rampur Bushahr, H. P. in Land Reference Petition No. 78 of 2000 titled as Chander Mohan & others Vs. State of H.P. & others. For the public purpose, namely, ‘construction of Oddi-Kachinghati-road’ the appellants’ land comprising Khasra Nos. 894, 895, 890, 898, 899 and 891 measuring 0-10-43 hectare situate in revenue village Dhannal, Tehsil Kumarsain, Distt. Shimla, H.P., was acquired vide Notification dated 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 24.4.1996 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) (published in H. P. State Gazette on 25.5.1996), as also the Collector’s Award issued under Section 11 being No. 34 of 1988, dated 15.3.1999. In terms of the Award, the Collector awarded different rates for different classifications of land as under:- Sr.No. Classification of land Rate per Hect. 1. Bakhal Awal Rs.1,20,300.00 2. Bakhal Doyam Rs. 92,600.00 3. Bakhal Soyam Rs. 61,100.00 4. Banjar Ghasni Rs. 9,800.00 Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed a Reference Petition under Section 18 of the Act, claiming enhancement not only of the market value of the acquired land but compensation for the fruit bearing trees along with standing crop. The evidence was led by the parties. The Court below considered the material but however, relying upon the decision rendered by the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and another (AIR 1996 SC 106), also relied upon by the Collector in the Award in question, did not award compensation for the fruit bearing trees and the standing apple crop. In so far as the enhancement of the market value of the land is concerned, the Court below enhanced the compensation determined by the Collector by 30%. However, 3 perusal of the impugned award would show that no justification, basis/reasons have been assigned by the Court while arriving at its conclusion. The Award needs to be remanded back on this point alone. However, Mr. Verma, Senior Counsel for the appellants has fairly stated that he is not aggrieved by this part of the Award and accepts the same. He has brought to my notice a decision rendered by the Apex Court in State of J & K v. Mohammad Mateen Wani (AIR 1998 SC 2470), wherein it has been held that where the State Government has issued instructions and guidelines for separate assessment of the land and the trees, thereupon the Collector is duty bound to assess the same separately while determining the compensation payable to the claimants. It is not in dispute that in the State of Himachal Pradesh, such instructions were in vogue as on the date of the initiation of the acquisition proceedings, therefore, in my view, the impugned Award needs to be set-aside on this count and the matter needs to be remanded back to the concerned Court for adjudication afresh only on the issue regarding determination and payment of compensation for 51 apple trees and also the standing crop of apples as on the date when the possession of the land was taken over by the State. It would be open for the parties to lead evidence for proper adjudication of their claim. The Court below shall consider the ratio of law laid down by Mr. Verma, Senior Counsel in Union of India v. Khazana Ram 4 (1998(1) SLC 479), decided by this Court and see the applicability of the same and decide the issue accordingly. For the aforesaid reasons, the present appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. The reference petition is restored to its original position. Parties through their learned counsels are directed to appear before the concerned Court on 29th September, 2008. The record be sent back immediately. Keeping in view the fact that the acquisition proceedings pertain to the year 1996, an endeavour shall be made by the Court to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible. The appeal is allowed and disposed of with the aforesaid observation. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. August 26, 2008. (rana)