Ajmer Singh and Others vs The State of Punjab

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.—This order shall dispose of 2 appeals bearing RFA No. 1822 of 1993 titled as ''Ajmer Singh and Ors. v. The State

of Punjab'' and RFA No. 1367 of 1993 titled as ''The State of Punjab v. Ajmer Singh and Ors.'' having been filed by both the claimants and the

State against the award of the learned Additional District Judge, Ropar, dated 23.12.1992. However, facts of the case are being extracted from

RFA No. 1822 of 1993 titled as ''Ajmer Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab''.

Vide notification issued u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short ""the Act""] dated 13.09.1985 followed by notification issued u/s 6 of

the Act, land measuring 49.62 acres of village Majat, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar was acquired. The Land Acquisition Collector [for short

Collector""] gave two separate awards, one for the land i.e. award No. 61-R/SYL dated 13.03.1986 and the other for the trees standing on the

land i.e. award No. 62-R/SYL dated 13.03.1986. In the present case, the dispute is with regard to the compensation awarded for trees. The

Collector awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 63,598/- for fruit trees and Rs. 3,16,322.79 paise for trees other than fruit trees. The total

acquired trees were 449 kinnow trees (in fact the No. is 447), 2600 eucalyptus trees and 3 shisham trees.

Aggrieved against award of the Collector, the claimants filed objection u/s 18 of the Act which has been decided by the learned Reference

Court by the impugned order after enhancing the compensation of the trees to the tune of Rs. 19,40,327.50 paise, less the amount which has

already been received by the claimants. The amount of eucalyptus trees was assessed to the tune of Rs. 13,00,000/-, whereas value of 447

kinnow trees was assessed to the tune of Rs. 6,40,327.60 paise. The learned Reference Court assessed the compensation with the following

observations:

The acquisition in this case is of the month of September 1985. There is no mention at all in this report that the classification was made according

to Dr. Nijjar''s formula. According to Dr. Nijjar formula, various value components such as basic value, yearly income and fuel/timber value of

orchard trees are summed up. Since the fruit growers have to be paid for compensation in lump sum the total yearly income (no. of remaining

bearing years income per year) is multiplied by a faith. This factor has been given in table second of the report. The multiplying factor according to

the year of remaining life of orchard trees is as under:

Remaining life Multiplying factor

of trees (years)

1-10 2/3

11-20 1/2

21-30 1/3

Over 30 1/4

Thus the formula for compensation would be:

basic value + (No. of remaining bearing years � income for year � multiplying factor) + fuel.

The basic value for the kinnow trees in question is:

15 + 60 = 75 + Rs. 7.50p (10% matability) - Rs. 82.50p.

Years (average bearing life) 25 years x 150 (yearly income) 3750/-)

3750 � 1/3 = 1250 (Value of remaining years) + Rs. 82.50p (Basic Value) + Rs. 100/- (Fuel Value roughly estimated) --- Value per tree Rs.

1432.50p.

Value of 447 Kinnow trees Rs. 1432.50p x 447=Rs. 6,40,327.50p.

The ld. Counsel for the applicant referred to the judgment of Sh. K.S. Kauldhar learned District Judge, Ropar copy of which is P2. He argued

that it is a relevant instance in determining the value of the kinnow trees in question, as this judgment also pertains to the same acquisition dated

13.09.1985 in which the same award was given. The land of Gurmail Singh etc. in this very village Majat was acquired and their 724 Guava trees,

286 Mitha trees and 6 Kikar trees and dek trees were acquired. This judgment shows that the age of the mitha tree was proved as 1-2 years and

according to Dr. Nijjar''s formula, the value of 286 Mitha trees was assessed Rs. 10,72,500/-. The Ld. Counsel for the applicants argued that

Mitha is also of citreous family like Kinnow and rather Kinnow fruit is costly, so compensation be awarded to that extent. The method of

calculation has not been discussed in this judgment (P2). The calculation appears to be wrong. However, this judgment is relevant as Dr. Nijjar

formula was recognized and compensation was awarded accordingly regarding fruit bearing trees. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded Rs.

17,655/- only for 447 Kinnow trees of the applicants. The value of one tree roughly comes to Rs. 40/-. This was quite inadequate compensation

based on no formula.

The applicants are accordingly entitled to claim Rs. 13 lacs as compensation for 2600 eucalyptus trees and Rs. 6,40,327.60 p as

compensation for 447 Kinnow trees which were acquired. These issues are decided to this effect in favour of the applicants.

No one has come forward to argue the appeal filed by the claimants. However, the Court has considered grounds which have been taken in the

memo of appeal, in which it has been alleged by the claimants that the compensation has been given for 2 crops instead of 3 crops and as the

orchard is falling within 1 Kilometer from the main road and 8 Kilometers from the municipal limits, the higher amount of value of 10% should be

given. Counsel for the State, while arguing the State appeal, has prayed for reduction of the amount of compensation by alleging only that the

compensation has been awarded on the higher side.

I have heard learned State counsel and have perused the record carefully.

To my mind, 10% increase is not available to the claimants only for the reason that orchard is near the municipal limits or the main road because

that would not, in any case, enhance the value of the trees. Insofar as the objection with regard to 3 crops is raised, learned Court below has

discussed in detail Dr. Nijjar''s formula, which is accepted by the Courts, and on the basis thereof compensation has been enhanced with regard to

eucalyptus trees from Rs. 3,16,322.79 paise to Rs. 13,00,000/- and with regard to fruit trees from Rs. 63,598/- to Rs. 6,40,327.60 paise. There

is hardly any scope for further enhancement of compensation or for reducing the compensation as prayed for by the counsel for the State and as

such I do not find any merit in these appeals. Hence, the appeal filed by the State as well as the appeal filed by the claimants are found to be

without any merit and are hereby dismissed.

No costs.