IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RFA No. 63 of 2000 Judgment reserved on: 27th July,2009 Date of Decision :_July 29, 2009 __________________________________________________________ State of H.P. and Another ….Appellants. Versus Liaq Ram and others. ….Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 __________________________________________________________ For the Appellants: Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G. For the Respondents No. Shri G.D. Verma, Sr. Advocate with 1,2, 4 and 5 Shri Romesh Verma, Advocate __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J. This appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment and award of the learned District Judge, Shimla in land reference petition No. 23/S/4 of 1997/87. The respondents-claimants preferred the reference petition out of which this appeal arises claiming just compensation for land bearing Khasra No. 8/1, 11/1 and 16/1, measuring 3 bighas 3 biswas, situated in Chak Boila Jandrori and the trees standing thereon. The Government of Himachal Pradesh through its Public Works Department issued notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) on 20.8.1983 notifying its intention to acquire lands including the land of the petitioners for the purpose of construction of T.K.H. road. Subsequent proceedings under Section 6 and 7 of the Act were initiated and completed. The Land Acquisition Collector, Shimla and Kullu, on consideration of material before him, awarded a sum of Rs. 17,774.95 Ps. for the land and Rs. 24,088.50 Ps for trees. In addition, the compulsory acquisition charges and interest etc. as provided for by the Act that has also been awarded. The claimants challenged the award pleading inadequacy of compensation. RFA 167 of 1987 was preferred by the State against the award which was made by the learned Reference Court. By an order dated 14th July, 1997 the award was set aside and a direction was issued to the learned Reference Court to follow the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Gurcharan Singh and another, AIR 1995 (1) Scale 530. After remand, the claimants led additional evidence of Shri T.R. Chadda who appeared as PW6 and was produced as an expert by the claimants. No evidence was led on behalf of the respondent-State. The learned Reference Court vide its award dated 29.6.1998 allowed the reference petition and awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,37,500/-, in addition to the statutory entitlement of compulsory acquisition charges and interest. The State is now in appeal. I have heard Ms. Ruma Kaushik, learned Additional Advocate General and Shri G.D. Verma, Senior counsel instructed by Shri Romesh Verma, Advocate appearing for the respondents. A number of grounds have been raised by the State to plead that the learned Reference Court was in error in not awarding the compensation in accordance with the principles of law as settled from time to time. It was submitted on behalf of the State that the judgment is not based on a sound assessment of the evidence and that the productivity yield relied upon by the 3 learned Reference Court could not be sustained as evidence of PW6 Shri T.R. Chadha, who had proved on record his report Ext.PW6/A, is full of contradictions. In order to prove their case, the claimants proved on record that the land was very fertile. For reaching this conclusion the learned Court relied upon the evidence of claimant PW1 Liaq Ram and PW2 Jai Ram. It is established on record that there was a flourishing apple orchard on the land. What is important and required to be considered is the evidence of PW6 when the case was retried after remand. Dr.T.R.Chadha, PW6 is the Ex-Director Research Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry at Solan. He has stated on oath that he had seen the acquired land and accordingly prepared his report Ext.PW6/A. He testifies that this report is based on the settled principles applicable for assessment of horticulture produce/orchards and based on his experience as a Scientist. I do not find anything in his cross-examination to suggest that what he stated in his examination in chief is not based on scientific evaluation. In his report Ext.PW6.A, he has considered in detail the net product of the fruits and produce etc. from the acquired land. The learned Court considered this report in detail and held that the land had fruit trees namely 45 apple plants, 8 pear plants and 6 apricot trees. The Court concluded that on the basis of the yield, the gross income from the acquired land would be Rs. 1,91,200/- and thereafter it proceeded to deduct a sum of Rs. 57,360/- or 30% of the entire assessed value. In addition, a sum of Rs. 3,666/- has been awarded for non-fruit trees and net award of Rs. 1,37,500/- has been made. I notice at this juncture that the Court has rejected the evidence led by the claimants regarding comparable instances of sale deeds Ext.P1 and Ext.P2 showing the value of acquired land at a higher rate. The Court accepts that these sale deeds are executed on 23.12.1980 and 7.2.1981 are much prior in point of 4 time to the acquisition proceedings, but rejects the sale deeds on the ground that the vendor and vendee have not been examined. I do not wish to enter into this controversy any further, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, which does not require the vendor and vendee to be produced in evidence. Having considered the evidence of the parties on record, I do not find that the Court below was in error in holding the compensation at the rate as determined by it. The learned Court has rightly relied upon the evidence of respondents and more especially PW6, the retired Director Research of Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture, whose evidence has remained unrebutted. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. July 29, 2009 (Dev Darshan Sud), (ms) Judge