RFA No.1675 of 1990 (2 cases) 1 In the Punjab and Haryana High Court,at Chandigarh. RFA No. 1675 of 1990 Decided on August 22,2008. Gurdev Singh and others ---Appellants. vs. State of Punjab and another --- Respondents Present: Mr.Rajneesh Narula,Advocate, for the appellants(in the appeal filed by the claimants/landowners and for the respondents (in the appeal filed by the State of Punjab) Mr.Manohar Lall,Addl.A.G.Punjab,for the appellants (in the appeal filed by the State and for the respondents (in the appeal filed by the claimants-landowners). Rakesh Kumar Jain,J: This judgment shall dispose of RFA No.1675 of 1990 filed by the appellants/landowners-claimants and RFA Nos.1864 of 1990 filed by the State of Punjab and another, as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. Vide notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short,'the Act') dated 5.12.1984 followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act dated 7.12.1984, land in village Salapur, Tehsil and District Ropar, was acquired for construction of SYL Canal Project. The impugned award with regard to the land was announced on 27.6.1986,whereas supplementary award was announced by the Collector RFA No.1675 of 1990 (2 cases) 2 under the Act on 18.9.1986 for fruit bearing trees and tubewell existing on the land. Unsatisfied with the award, objections under Section 18 of the Act, were filed by the claimants/landowners in which enhancement of compensation was claimed by assessing the value of the following:- 1. 650 fruit bearing Gauva trees Rs.6,50,000/- 2. 4 Lemon trees Rs. 12,000/- 3. 30 Safeda trees Rs.60,000/- 4. One fruit bearing orange tree Rs.4,000/- 5. One dek tree Rs.5000/- 6. One Khalari Rs.10,000/- 7. One Kotha Rs.10,000/- 8. One pipe line to the length of 1200 feet Rs.30,000/- 9. One tubewell Rs.40,000/- 10.Cistern Rs. 5000/- 11.One well pucca Rs.30,000/- 12.One Arru tree (fruit bearing) Rs.3,000/- 13.One Electric Motor of 5 horse power Rs.10,000/- In reply to the claimants statement, it was pleaded that compensation has been received without protest, therefore, the petition is not maintainable; that there were 545 gauva trees, 6 lemon, one orange and one peach trees on the acquired land with one tubewell for which adequate compensation has already been paid. Both the parties led oral as well as documentary evidence. The claimants had examined Jai Singh a retired S.D.O. as PW-1, who had RFA No.1675 of 1990 (2 cases) 3 prepared the site plans Exs.P-1 and P-2, Gurdev Singh as PW-2, Sadhu Singh as PW-3 and Jasbir Singh as PW-4 who had prepared report Ex.P-4 and gave his assessment Ex.P-5. As against this, the respondents had examined Baldev Singh, Horticulture Inspector , who had proved his report Ex.R-1 regarding value of trees, Balinder Singh as RW-2, who produced the details of estimates of tubewell structure, Ex.R-2 plan of the tubewell and also examined Raj Kumar as RW-3 who produced photo stat copy of report Ex. R-4 and affidavit of claimant Ex. R-5. The main dispute before the Court below was with regard to number of acquired trees and assessment of their value. After appreciating both oral as well as documentary evidence on record, the Addl.District Judge, Ropar, assessed the market value of the trees @ Rs. 74484.33 paise and with regard to tubewell to Rs. 17992-50 paise. Still unsatisfied, the claimants have come up in appeal clamouring further enhancement whereas the State of Punjab has filed appeal for seeking reduction in the compensation that has been awarded by the Court below. Counsel for the appellants/claimants has argued that the Court below has erred in appreciating the report submitted by Jasbir Singh PW-4 with regard to number of trees and assessment thereof which has been worked out to Rs. 4,11,000/- on the basis of Dr. Nijjar's formula,whereas counsel for the respondents has argued that the Court below has rightly appreciated the report Ex.R-1 prepared by Baldev Singh RW-1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused RFA No.1675 of 1990 (2 cases) 4 the record with their assistance. So far as the report of Jasbir Singh PW-4 is concerned, it has rightly not been taken into account by the Court below because it has been found that there is basic flaw in his report as the claimants were entitled to compensation for trees which existed on the acquired land and not for the trees which grew on other unacquired land. No documentary report was prepared by this witness in this regard and moreover, it was found that he visited the site on 30.8.1985 and prepared his rough notes but gave his report just a month before it was produced on 2.8.1989 without producing rough notes on the record. Therefore, it has been found that there is every possibility of introduction of exaggerated number of trees from the figures mentioned by the claimants. The report was found to be an after-thought and therefore, it was rightly rejected. On the other hand, report of RW-1 was relied upon because he had divided the land into different fiends as per revenue record and had clearly shown break up of trees according to the fields. Evaluation of this witness was accepted as he had applied Dr. Nijjar's formula on the fruit bearing trees but one flaw in his report was noticed that he did not assess the value of the trees which had not reached fruit bearing stage. Therefore, the witness was recalled to fill in this lacuna and produce his revised evaluation report which was produced as Ex. C-1. The Court had also found that Dr.Nijjar's formula was prepared in the year 1985,whereas present acquisition took place in the year 1984. In this view of the matter, the Court below had decided the question with regard to calculation of trees as well as its price. Similarly, the claimants had proved total value of tubewell structure to Rs. 70639/- whereas the respondents have evaluated it to Rs. RFA No.1675 of 1990 (2 cases) 5 11995/- as per report Ex. R-2. The respondents also relied upon the estimates and the assessment Ex.R-4 and affidavit of Gurdev Singh as Ex. R-5. Since there was a huge difference, the Court below had used rule of thumb for fixing the fair value of the tubewell and enhanced the amount from Rs. 11995/- to Rs. 17992.50 paise. In my view, the finding of fact recorded by the Court below is, in no manner, required to be tinkered with and, therefore, the same is hereby upheld. In view of the above finding, I do not find any reason for further enhancement in the appeal filed by the claimants as well as reduction of compensation in the appeal filed by the State of Punjab. Hence, both of them are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. August 22,2008 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge