RFA No. 2505 of 1991 1 In the Punjab and Haryana High Court,at Chandigarh. Decided on 30.3.2009 State of Haryana --Appellant vs Avtar Singh --Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Rajiv Kawatra, Sr. DAG, Haryana, for the appellant Mr.Arun Bansal, Advocate, with MrSandeep Bansal,Advocate,for the respondent/claimant. Rakesh Kumar Jain,J: This order shall dispose of six Regular First Appeals Nos. 2505, 2506 and 2507 of 1991, filed by the State of Haryana and Nos.2450, 2451 and 2452 of 1992 filed by the claimants against the award of the District Judge Ambala, dated 13.8.1991. Since identical question of law and facts are involved in these appeals, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. Land of village Patti Jattan, Tehsil and District Ambala was notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short,'the Act') dated 30.9.1982, followed by a notification of declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act dated 19.10.1982, for the public purpose, namely for the construction of Bank of Panjokhra Minor. RFA No. 2505 of 1991 2 The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') announced his award pertaining to the land vide his award No.2 dated 18.5.1983, but no award was announced for the trees which were also acquired. Later on, vide award No.24 dated 08.9.1986, the Collector awarded the following compensation:- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Sr.No.Name of the Kind of Total Value owner trees trees in Rupees. - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - -- - -- - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- 1. Smt.Surjit Kaur Sabancls 1146 24540/- w/oSarwan Singh 2. Teja Singh s/o Sabancls 1561 9370/- Kirpa Singh 3. Bhag Singh s/o Sabancls 1142 12,000/- Puran Singh - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - -- - - - -- - - Owners of the acquired trees namely, Avtar Singh,Surjit Kaur and Bhag Singh filed objections against the award of the Collector. Avtar Singh took the plea that he had incurred expenditure of Rs.28.50 paise per plant. Bhag Singh and Surjit Kaur led evidence that they had incurred Rs.33/- per plant, but the Collector had awarded Rs.6/- per plant and Rs. 10.50 paise per plant respectively. In support of their claim, the land owners examined Parvej Ahmed, the then D.F.O,Ambala as PW2, who assessed the compensation in respect of the trees in response to a written request received from the Executive Engineer, Satluj Yamuna Link, Division No.2, Ambala City and sent his assessment vide his letter Ex.P-1 dated 19.6.1984. The land owners examined Jasbir Singh as PW-6, who stated that he had dug pits in the land belonging to Avtar Singh, Bhag Singh, and Smt.Surjit Kaur and charged Rs. 20,000/- @ Rs. 2500/- per acre for 8 acres of land and issued RFA No. 2505 of 1991 3 receipts of the payment received. Devinder was examined as PW- 7, who stated that in the year 1980, he had supplied eucalyptus plants to the land owners @ 50 paise per plant. Nirmal Singh was examined as PW-8, who stated that in the year 1980, he had charged Rs. 250/- per trip for carrying 1000 plants in one trip from village Dhurali to Lohgarh Road. PW3 Avtar Singh made a statement that there were 1500-1600 eucalyptus trees planted in the year 1980 after purchasing saplings @ 50 paise and the claimants had paid @ 0. 25 paise per sapling for transportation charges. He also stated that he was given Rs.5000/- for digging pit @ Rs.1/- per plant and had further incurred expenses of Rs.4 to 5 per plant on fertilizer and pesticides. He also claimed that he had incurred expenses Rs.3/- per plant towards water irrigation. He further deposed that eucalyptus trees fully develop in 6 to 7 years time fetching Rs.200 to 300 per tree and one plant of eucalyptus gives 4 to 5 crops. Bachan Singh, who appeared as PW-4 made a statement that he had 1150 eucalyptus trees in his land for which he had incurred expenditure to the tune of Rs. 30 to Rs.35/- per plant. Bhag Singh appeared as PW-5 who also stated that he had incurred expenditure @ Rs.30/- to Rs.32/- per plant. On the other hand, State of Haryana examined A.R.Nagpal, S.D.O, S.Y.L, Sub Division No.13, Ambala as RW-1, who stated that the D.F.O. assessed the value of 3849 trees @ Rs.2,69,430/- and on re-determination, it was assessed at Rs. 45,910/-. He also stated that 3849 trees were auctioned for Rs. 24,000/- only. R.P.Dange, the then D.F.O, Panchkula,Ambala as RW-2 stated that he had assessed the value for the trees and RFA No. 2505 of 1991 4 conveyed the assessment vide his letter Exs. R-1 and R-2. He also deposed that 80% of the trees were below 29 centimeters girth. Before the reference Court, the landowners relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Sukhdev Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another 1990 (1) R.R.R. 7 to contend that the High Court had awarded compensation for eucalyptus trees of the age of 4 to 5 years @ Rs.377.30 paise per tree for two crops, therefore, same compensation should be awarded to the landowners. The reference Court considered the decision in the case of Sukhdev Singh (supra) and for the decision of the present case, the learned counsel have not led any evidence about girth and height of the trees. It was found that in the present case, age of the trees were two to three years,whereas in the case of Sukhdev Singh (Supra), it was 4 to 5 years. The trees in the case of Sukhdev Singh (Supra), were situated in the land of Rajpura, District Patiala, where the water level is very high in comparison to the water level in Ambala. Therefore, it was not found to be a guiding factor. However, the reference Court relied upon the report of Parvej Ahmed (PW-2) who had assessed the compensation @ Rs. 70/- per tree against which the department had made a reference to R.P.Dange, D.F.O, who had appeared as RW-2 and had assessed the value of eucalyptus trees @ Rs. 6/- to Rs. 20/- per tree. However, the reference Court had found that at least, Rs. 5/- per plant was spent by the land owners at the initial stage and also did not believe the rate of auction by which the entire acquired trees were sold for Rs.24,000/- only @ Rs. 6/- per RFA No. 2505 of 1991 5 plant. Thus, taking into consideration the totality of circumstances, the reference Court following the report of Parvej Ahmed (PW-2) compensation @ Rs. 70/- per plant was accepted. Unsatisfied with the amount awarded, both the State of Haryana as well as land-owners have come up in these appeals. Learned counsel for the landowners has vehemently contended that the reference Court has committed a palpable error while not considering the fact that in the case of Sukhdev Singh's Case (Supra), this Court has accepted that eucalyptus trees become fully ripe for cutting after a lapse of 10 to 12 years and yield three crops. However, it was found that the claimants had to wait for at least 35 years to cut all the three crops and compensation is being paid in lump sum, then It was held that the compensation of two crops would meet the ends of justice. Thus, in the said case, the compensation for two crops per tree was worked out and the same was awarded to the landowners. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that although, the reference Court should have allowed the same compensation that has been allowed in Sukhdev Singh's Case (Supra), but in case, same compensation is not being allowed for any reason, at least, the compensation assessed by the reference Court should be ordered to be paid for two crops instead of one crop. Learned counsel for the appellants has referred to a letter document Ex.P-2 dated 27.4.1984 in which it was categorically mentioned that all the trees numbering 3849 are of the age of 3 to 4 years, whereas the reference Court has mentioned in the impugned order that the trees were of the age of 2 RFA No. 2505 of 1991 6 to 3 years. On the contrary, learned counsel for the State has vehemently contended that instead of relying the report of PW-1, the Court should have relied upon the report of RW-2 and the compensation should have been awarded at the most @ Rs.20/- per tree. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have perused the record with their assistance. Learned counsel for the State has failed to point out error in the report Ex.P-1 from the reports Exs. R-1 and R-2 whereas it has been specifically provided in the letter Ex.P-2 that the age of the trees at the time of acquisition was 3 to 4 years. In the case of Sukhdev Singh (Supra), this Court had relied upon the evidence led in extenso and held that the eucalyptus tree gives 3 crops in 35 years, but keeping in view that lump sum is being paid, the Court found it fit to give two crops and multiply the value per crop and awarded the compensation accordingly. Thus, in my view the appellants are entitled to compensation of two crops instead of one as has been awarded by the reference Court @ Rs.70/- per tree which comes to Rs. 140/-per tree. In view of the above discussion,the present appeals filed by the claimants are hereby allowed. It is held that the land-owners shall get value of their trees @ Rs.70/- per tree as has been assessed by the reference Court, but the same shall be awarded for two crops instead of one and in this manner, they shall be awarded Rs.140/- per tree besides all the statutory benefits in terms of the provisions of the amended Act along-with cost of the appeals. So far RFA No. 2505 of 1991 7 as the appeals filed by the State of Haryana are concerned, those are found to be without any merit and are dismissed without any order as to costs. March 30,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge