Case: State of Punjab and Ors Vs. Thuru Ram

3. Land of the Respondent was acquired along with trees standing on it for construction of Hydel Channel. A notification Under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued on 12.01.1990 and the declaration Under Section 6 of the Act was made on 28.02.1990. The Land Acquisition Collector passed the supplementary award awarding compensation of the fruit trees standing on the acquired land on 10.03.1993. Reference Court had rejected the reference sought by the Respondent holding that the award made by the Land Acquisition Collector was proper and correct. The Respondent approached the High Court of Punjab & Haryana by filing the appeal which came to be allowed by the impugned judgment and reference was accepted awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,77,377/- for the standing trees on the acquired land along with other statutory benefits as per Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act. Hence, this appeal by the State.

Court's reasoning:
As mentioned supra, the reference court on evaluating the material on record confirmed the award of the Land Acquisition Collector7. Though, the Respondent (AW-1) claimed that the 396 fruit trees were standing, in his deposition he stated that they were 250 fruit trees which included amrood, orange and mango. Such trees were 4 to 5 years old. The expert examined by the Respondent i.e. AW-2 Sunder Singh is a retired District Agricultural Officer who served for 34 years in various capacities. According to his report total value of all the trees was Rs. 6,35,114.70. Certain other factors such as distance of land from the town etc. are also deposed by himPer contra, the Patwari (RW-1) examined on behalf of the Appellant State has produced khasra girdawari register of the relevant village in respect of certain years. The total area of the acquired land belonging to the Respondent is 7 kanals 2 marlas (less than 1 acre). In 1985-86, wheat and other crops were shown to have sown in the land. However, subsequently orchard (Bagicha) has been added with different ink in the crops column and according to him such entry was made, i.e. adding the word Bagicha, without any order from the competent authority. No initials were also found. According to RW-2, Horticulture Development Officer the acquired trees of the Respondent were found to be of D category. He has given the value of every kind of standing fruit trees. The valuation of RW-2 is far less than the valuation provided by AW-28. The expert examined by the Respondent (AW-2) has admitted that there was a tank for storing water and buckets were lying. Meaning thereby the Respondent was allegedly watering the fruit trees by pouring water with the help of buckets. There was no perennial source of water. In that regard the reference court concluded that the irrigation facility was scanty. AW-2 has further deposed that there could be 90 fruit trees in one killa (equal to one acre). If, only 90 fruits trees can be planted in one killa (one acre), we are at a loss to understand as to how there could be 250 trees or 396 trees in 7 kanals and 2 marlas of land (less than one acre) that too of B category as is sought to be contended by the Respondent.