IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RFA No.446 of 2001 Judgment reserved on:13.8.2008. Decided on: Sept.19, 2008 State of H.P. …..Appellant. VERSUS Raman Kumar & Ors. …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the Appellant : Mr.Anshul Bansal, Addl.A.G. For the Respondents: Mr.D.N.Ronta, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge: This appeal has been directed against the award dated 16.1.1999 passed by learned District Judge (Forest), Shimla, in Land Reference No.19-S/4 of 1988 enhancing compensation to the tune of Rs.1,29,596 in favour of respondents along with statutory payments and interest. 2. The facts, in brief, are that a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) was published in Gazette on 17.12.1983 for acquiring land comprised in Khasra Nos.706/232/1, 714/236/1, 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes …2… 714/232/2, 715/236/3, Kitas 4 measuring 3.2 bighas situated in village Pandli Tehsil Kotkhai, District Shimla, for public purposes for construction of Pandli – Punjrish road. The Collector announced the award on 22.8.1987 and awarded Rs.1,51,431.57 along with 30% compulsory acquisition charges and 12% interest from the date of acquisition of the land of the respondents. The predecessor-in-interest of the respondents filed reference petition under Section 18 of the Act for determination of market value of the acquired land which was contested by the appellant. The learned District Judge vide award dated 6.6.1990 enhanced the amount of compensation to the extent of Rs.1,02,540 along with 30% solatium, 12% additional compensation and 9% and 15% interest as per award. The appellant filed RFA No.70 of 1990 against the award dated 6.6.1990 which was allowed on 23.12.1997, the award dated 6.6.1990 was set aside, the case was remanded to District judge for fresh trial after giving opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence. After remand, respondents examined three witnesses but appellant did not lead any evidence. The learned District Judge ultimately awarded enhanced amount of …3… compensation on 16.1.1999, as noticed above, hence, appeal by the State. 3. I have heard Mr.Anshul Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General, on behalf of the appellant, Mr.D.N.Ronta, learned counsel for the respondents and gone through the record. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the learned District Judge has erred in enhancing the amount of compensation. The evidence on record has not been properly appreciated. The findings recorded by learned District Judge for enhancing the compensation are not in consonance with the evidence on record. The learned District Judge has erred in separately assessing the trees. The interest has not been awarded in accordance with law. The learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned award and has submitted that the appellant is mainly aggrieved against the award of interest as per the grounds taken in the memorandum of appeal but learned District Judge has rightly awarded the interest to the respondents. The amount awarded to the respondents on account of acquisition is otherwise also correct. He has prayed for dismissal of the appeal. …4… 4. A Division Bench of this Court allowed RFA No.70 of 1990 on 23.12.1997 on the ground that Collector and District Judge had assessed the market value of the land and trees separately in violation of law laid down by the Supreme Court. The learned District Judge in the impugned award has determined the market value of 76 apple trees Rs.1,82,400 at the time of acquisition of land and after deducting an amount of Rs.52,804 of 62 apple trees already paid to respondents on account of market value of fruit trees has recorded a finding that enhanced amount of compensation comes to Rs.1,29,596. The learned District Judge has not specifically recorded a finding that enhanced amount of Rs.1,29,596 will include the market value of the acquired land on the basis of income from the fruit bearing trees. The method adopted by learned District Judge in determining the market value is nothing but capitalization method for assessing the market value of land and trees on the basis of income from the fruit bearing trees. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the learned District Judge in the impugned award dated 16.1.1999 has committed same error despite the remand order dated 23.12.1997 which was committed earlier in the award dated 6.6.1990 when …5… learned District Judge had assessed the market value of the land and trees separately. As noticed above, the market value assessed by the learned District Judge on the basis of income from the fruit bearing trees is in fact the market value of the land and trees as a unit. Therefore, the method adopted by learned District Judge in assessing the market value of the land and trees cannot be faulted. 5. In the grounds of appeal, the appellant has not disputed the number of trees which were standing on the acquired land and which were taken into consideration by learned District Judge for assessing the market value of the acquired land with trees. The income from such trees has also not been questioned in the grounds of appeal. Therefore, market value of the acquired land with trees on the basis of income from the trees assessed by learned District Judge and thereby awarding enhanced amount of compensation Rs.1,29,596 cannot be faulted. The Land Acquisition Collector had awarded Rs.12,487.67 to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents on account of compensation of the land. The learned District Judge in the impugned award has determined the market value of the acquired land with trees on the basis of income of the trees, therefore, the respondents are not entitled to …6… separate amount of Rs.12,487.67 awarded by the Collector vide award dated 22.8.1987. The amount of Rs.12,487.67, with statutory increases, if already paid to the respondents or their predecessor, is required to be deducted from the amount of compensation which becomes payable to the respondents under the impugned award. 6. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the component of interest in the impugned award has been wrongly awarded by the learned District Judge but learned Additional Advocate General has failed to point out how the learned District Judge has awarded interest wrongly. I have perused the impugned award and, in my opinion, the learned District Judge has correctly awarded the interest in the impugned award. No case for interference has been made out. 7. No other point was urged. 8. The result of the above discussion, the appeal fails and is dismissed in light of the findings recorded herein-above. No costs. Sept. 19, 2008 ( Kuldip Singh ) (soni) Judge.