RFA No.1612 of 1990 1 In the Punjab and Haryana High Court,at Chandigarh. RFA No. 1612 of 1990 Decided on August 22,2008. Harnam Singh and another ---Appellants. vs. State of Punjab and another --- Respondents Present: Mr.Rajneesh Narula,Advocate, for the appellants Mr.Manohar Lall,Addl.A.G.Punjab, for the respondents. Rakesh Kumar Jain,J: This judgment shall dispose of RFA Nos. 1612 of 1990 filed by the appellants/landowners-claimants and RFA Nos.1865 of 1990 filed by the State of Punjab and others, as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. Land measuring 23.22 acres situated in village Salapur, Hadbast No.166,Tehsil and District Ropar, was notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short,'the Act') dated 6.12.1984 followed by notification published on 7.12.1984 for construction of Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal. The Land Acquisition Collector, SYL Canal Project,Patiala, RFA No.1612 of 1990 2 Punjab, vide his award dated 27.6.1986 assessed the market value of the land and vide his supplementary award dated 19.9.1986 assessed the market value @ Rs. 47119/- for fruit bearing trees as per the assessment given by the Director Horticulture,Punjab, Chandigarh and Rs. 11995/- for tubewell as per the rates supplied by Executive Engineer, SYL,SAS Nagar. The claimants Harnam Singh along-with his son Jaswant Singh filed objections under Section 18 of the Act on 1.10.1986 in which besides challenging the adequacy of the compensation for the fruit bearing trees, a dispute was raised with regard to number of trees alleged to have been acquired. The detail given by the claimants regarding fruit bearing trees and the amount claimed against them is as under:- i) 300 fruit bearing Guava trees: Rs.2,50,000/- ii) 4 fruit bearing Mango trees: Rs. 15,000/- iii)500 Safeda trees (age 7Years): Rs.3, 50,000/- iv)50 Shisham trees: Rs.1, 50,000/- v) 2 Jamun trees: Rs. 6,000/- vi)One Pippal tree: Rs. 3,000/- In the written statement dated 3.11.1988, the Collector had pleaded that only 269 Guava trees and three Mango trees belonging to the claimants have been acquired for the construction of SYL Canal. Claimant Harnam Singh examined himself as PW-1 Nirmal Singh as PW-2 and Jasbir Singh, Deputy Director, Horticulture (Retired) as PW-3, who had prepared a report Ex.P-2 about the existence of trees and RFA No.1612 of 1990 3 assessed their value @ Rs. 3,86,400/- vide his report Ex.P-3. On the other hand, the respondents had examined Baldev Singh, Inspector, Horticulture as RW-1 who proved his report Ex. R-1 but this witness was recalled and he gave a fresh report Ex. C1 . Thus, there were two questions which were adjudicated by the Court below, namely the number of trees which were acquired as there was a considerable difference and secondly their evaluation. After considering the entire evidence on record, Addl.District Judge,Ropar, found that value of the trees by Jasbir Singh PW-3 was wrong and that of Baldev Singh was correct. It was also found that Harnam Singh is entitled to Rs.71370/- and Jaswant Singh to Rs. 11980/- towards acquisition of the trees. Counsel for the appellants has argued that evaluation of the trees by the Court below is erroneous. The Court below should have relied upon the calculations made by PW-3 Jasbir Singh. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has argued in this regard that calculation of Jasbir Singh was highly exaggerated. Secondly, counsel for the appellants has argued that the formula applied by Jasbir Singh should have been followed and ,accordingly, compensation should be awarded as determined by him. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has argued that the formula of Dr. G.S.Nijjar, has been rightly followed by the Court below and compensation has been accordingly granted. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. So far as the first question with regard to calculation of trees is RFA No.1612 of 1990 4 concerned, Jasbir Singh PW-3 did not give break up of the trees according to field numbers as has been done by RW-1 Baldev Singh in his report Ex.R-1. It is true that the claimants are entitled only to compensation for trees which existed on the acquired land and not for the trees which existed on the land which was not acquired. Therefore, it was necessary for PW-3 Jasbir Singh to demarcate and separate the acquired land from other land and then evaluate the trees existing on the acquired land only. In my view, the Court below has rightly opined that the assessment of Jasbir Singh PW- 3 had created a doubt on the ground that he visited the spot on 30.8.1985 and prepared rough notes but waited till one month before giving his statement in August, 1989. Four years' gap in preparation of document is unexplained. Therefore, his report has rightly been rejected by the Court below. On the other hand, Baldev Singh RW-1 has calculated the fruit trees field-wise mentioning field number, type of trees, number of trees, age and category. But the Court below has found one defect in the report of Baldev Singh RW-1 that he had prepared the value of the fruit bearing stage of the trees and had not prepared the value of the trees which were fruit bearing but had not reached that stage. In this regard, revised evaluation report Ex.C-1 was called for and according to Dr. Nijjar's formula, final evaluation was done. It was also found that Dr. Nijjar's formula was prepared in 1985,whereas the present acquisition is of December,1984. After calculating number of trees and also the value of trees, on the basis of documentary evidence available on the file, the Court below had assessed the market value of the acquired land. In view of the above, I do not find any error in the judgment of RFA No.1612 of 1990 5 the Addl.District Judge,Ropar, vide which compensation of Rs. 71,370.50 paise has been awarded to Harnam Singh and Rs. 11980/-to his son Jaswant Singh. No other point has been raised by either side. Thus, the appeals filed by the claimants/landowners as well as by the State are hereby dismissed but without any order as to cost. August 22,2008 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge