IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RFA No. 210 of 2002 Date of Decision: 6th May, 2008 Prem Singh and others Appellants Versus State of H.P. and another Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting1? Yes. For the appellants: Mr.M.L.Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Vivek Thakur, Deputy Advocate General, and Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The present appeal arises out of award dated 10.5.2002 passed by the District Judge, Kinnaur Civil Division at Rampur Bushahr, H.P., in Land Reference No. 94 of 1999, titled as Prem Singh and others vs. State of H.P. The appellants’ land measuring 0-05-79 hectare, comprised in Khasra No. 60/1, 109/1 and 305/1, situated in Village Kharahan, Sub Tehsil Nankhari, District Shimla, was acquired for public purpose, namely, construction of Bhutti-Delath road, vide Notification dated 7.2.1994 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), which was published in H.P. Rajpatra dated 19.3.1994. The Collector in terms of his award No.3/89 dated 18.2.1997 assessed the market value of acquired land as under:- Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? 2 “Classification of land Rates of land per bigha 1. Kiar Awal Rs.10,106.95 2. Kiar Doem Rs. 7,219.25 3. Bakhal Awal Rs. 3,529.41 4. Krali Awal Rs. 1,443.85 5. Banjar Kadeem Rs. 500.00 It was clarified in the award that a supplementary award with respect to fruit trees on the land would be issued after the receipt of valuation report from the Horticulture Department. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants filed Land Reference Petition under Section 18 of the Act on 23.6.1997. In the meanwhile, the supplementary award dated 30.9.1997 was also passed whereby the appellants along with other land owners were awarded compensation of a sum of Rs.81,843.19 and other statutory benefits towards the fruit plants which was based on the valuation report of the Horticulture Department of the State. The composite amount pertained to trees of all the khasra numbers acquired for the public purpose. The petition was decided in terms of impugned award whereby the compensation for the value of land payable to the appellants was enhanced to Rs.35,000/- per bigha, irrespective of the classification of the land. However, while so determining the compensation awarded towards the fruit bearing plants was disallowed on the ground that the Apex Court in State of Haryana vs. Gurcharan Singh, AIR 1996 SC 106, had held that compensation could not have been separately assessed and awarded for fruit bearing trees. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that determination of the market value of the land of Rs.35,000/- per bigha is 3 fair, just and reasonable and, therefore, the appellants do not seek further enhancement for the land, but, however, the determination of compensation towards fruit trees having been separately carried out by the Collector could not have been disallowed and the compensation ought to have been awarded by the Court below, therefore, the appellants seek enhancement of the amount determined by the Collector in the supplementary award. It is the common case of the parties that the value of the appellants’ land was separately assessed by the Collector based upon the valuation report submitted by Horticulture Department of the State and two separate awards were passed for compensation towards land and trees. The enhancement of compensation with respect to both the awards was a subject matter of adjudication before the District Judge also. This Court in Collector, LAC, Mandi vs. Karam Singh and others, (Latest HLJ 2000 (HP) 694), after considering the various judicial pronouncement of the Apex Court has held that the practice adopted by the State in awarding separate compensation towards the land and trees is perfectly in accordance with law. The Court considered the ratio of law laid down in State of J&K vs. Mohammad Mateen Wani and others, AIR 1998 SC 2470 and State of Haryana vs. Gurcharan Singh and another etc., (1995) (1) Scale 125. Therefore, the finding rendered by the District Judge that no separate compensation could have been awarded towards fruit trees is illegal and is reversed as such. Shri Jawahar Kaith (PW-1), Shri Prem Singh (PW-2), Shri Kishan Singh (PW-3), Khushi Ram (PW-4), Shri Hari Singh (PW-5) and Shri Ishwar Chand Sharma (PW-6), are the appellants witnesses. The respondents have produced Shri Visheshwar Lal (RW-1). 4 From the sworn testimony of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-6, it is evident that that the assessment of the trees has been carried out on the basis of ‘Harbans Singh Formula’ as contained in Article ‘the Evaluation of Fruit Trees, Basic Principles and Method and H.P. Land Records Manual. This position in any event is not disputed by the State. The assessment of the trees was got carried out on the basis of Price Index in the year 1966. There is considerable increase in the Price Index by more than 600%. Keeping in view the facts as proved on record, the interest of justice would be met if the compensation towards trees is enhanced by three times. Learned counsel for the appellants has brought to my notice decision of this Court in Secretary, HPPWD & others vs. Tunglu, RFA No. 323 of 2003 (decided on 323/2003) to prove the point that increase in Price Index has been considered and compensation has been enhanced in several cases and it is established practice even adopted by the State. This Court in Bhag Singh and others vs. L.A.C. and others, Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 389, has held that the right to property is a legal and constitutional right and no person can be deprived of his property save in accordance with law. The District Judge committed an illegality in disallowing the compensation separately determined by the Collector. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the appeal is allowed to the extent stated hereinabove. In addition to the amount enhanced by the District Judge with respect to the main award, the compensation towards the trees in the supplementary award is also enhanced by three times, which is assessed to be Rs.81.843 x 3 =2,45,529/- plus other statutory benefits. The appellants shall be entitled to compensation amount only with respect to trees, which were on their 5 land i.e., Khasra No. 601, 109/1 and 305/1 measuring 0-05-79 hectare, situate in village Kharahan, Sub Tehsil Nankhari, District Shimla. Needless to add that the appellants shall also be entitled to all other statutory benefits, more particularly, in the light of ratio of law laid down by Apex court in Sunder vs. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 211. It is clarified that the statutory enhancement shall be payable from the date of publication of the Notification i.e. 19.3.1994. The appeal is accordingly allowed. 6th May, 2008 (Sanjay Karol), (C) Judge.