IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. RFA No.169 of 2003 Date of Decision : September 3, 2008 State of H.P. and another …Appellants. Versus: Ganga Dass & others …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellants : Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A. G. with Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. A.G. For the respondents : Mr. I. D. Bali, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Virender Bali, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The impugned Award dated 31.5.2002 passed by the District Judge, Kinnaur Civil Division at Rampur Bushahr, H. P. in Land Reference Case No. 36 of 1999/96 titled as Ganga Dass & others Vs. L.A.C. & another, has been assailed by the State on the ground that the Court below while determining the market value of the acquired land has seriously erred in enhancing the compensation awarded by the Collector. For the public purpose, namely, construction of Matiana-Baragaon Highway, the claimants land measuring 14 biswas comprising Khasra No. 1379/1, 1378/1, 1380/1 and 1381/1, situate in revenue estate Shivan, Tehsil Kumarsain, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Distt. Shimla, was acquired by the State vide Notification dated 22.7.1988 (published in H. P. State Gazette on 13.8.1988) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and Collector’s Award No. SML-16/85, dated 8.8.1989 with respect to the land and supplementary Award No.SML-16/85, dated 26.8.1993 with respect to the trees. In terms of the Award, the compensation payable for the acquired land was determined at Rs.1,274/- and in terms of the supplementary Award, Rs.2,522.75 paise was awarded as compensation for the fruit bearing and non-fruit bearing plants on the acquired land. The claimants were satisfied with the compensation qua the land as awarded in terms of Award No. SM-16/85, dated 8.8.1989, but however, with regard to the supplementary Award dated 26.8.1993, the claimants filed a reference petition seeking enhancement of the compensation for the trees. Based on the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh (AIR 1996 SC 106), the Court below held that the land and the trees could not be valued separately and, therefore, awarded lump sum compensation at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per bigha inclusive of the trees found on the acquired land. A total sum of Rs.17,500/- was determined as compensation payable to the claimants as market value of their acquired land as against the compensation of Rs.3796.75 (Rs.1274/- for land and Rs.2522.75 for plants). 3 Over and above some claimants were also entitled to other statutory benefits including solatium and interest thereupon. This Court in Collector, LAC, Mandi vs. Karam Singh & Others (Latest HLJ 2000(H.P.) 694) has relied upon the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in State of J & K vs. Mohammed Mateenwani & Others (AIR 1998 SC 2470) has held that where the State itself has formulated the norms for determining the market value of the trees separately, the compensation can be separately determined and awarded for the fruit bearing trees. This view is further reiterated by this Court in Secretary, HPPWD & Others v. Tunglu (RFA No. 332 of 2003, decided on 28.3.2008). It is not in dispute that the said norms were in vogue at the time of the initiation of the acquisition proceedings. From the Collector’s Awards original and supplementary, it is also evident that the assessment has been done separately for the land and the fruit bearing trees. The State was well within its rights to assess the market value of the acquired land separately. The Court below could not have enhanced the compensation for the land particularly when no reference petition had been filed by the claimants disputing the market value of the land. They had already been benefited. From the record, it is evident that the assessment of the fruit bearing trees was carried out by the District Horticulture Officer, Shimla and was based on the ‘Harbans Singh Formula’ 4 which had been formulated on the basis of the price index of the year 1966. From the statements of S/Shri Jawahar Kaith (PW- 1), O.P. Bhardwaj (PW-2), Gopal Singh (PW-3), Ganga Dass (PW-4) and Nardev Thakur (PW-5), it is evident that the valuation report Ext.PXX stands proved. The acquisition proceedings pertain to the year 1988. The Investigator Labuor Bureau of the Govt. of India has deposed that the increase in the price index had risen by 165%. By adopting the said Formula, the total amount of compensation would be much higher but however since the claimants have not filed any cross-objections and were satisfied with the amount of Rs.17,500/-, therefore, I hold that the claimants would be entitled to Rs.17,500/- as compensation towards the value of the trees. Needless to add, the claimants shall be entitled to all statutory benefits including solatium and interest. The Award is modified and the appeal is accordingly disposed of. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. September 3, 2008. (rana)