AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H.S. Brar, J.—In pursuance of the Notification published on 20.3.1995 u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called ''the Act''), the State of Punjab sought to acquire the land of village Ropar Hadbast No. 44 measuring 22.34 acres which came out to be 23.62 acres after measurement for public expense. The Land Acquisition Collector vide its award No. 129 dated 3.7.1986 awarded separate compensation for the trees grown in the acquired land. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation of Rs. 1,50,471/- for 2700 trees.
Being dis-satisfied with the adequacy of compensation awarded by the Collector the Appellants successfully sought reference u/s 18 of the Act in the Court of District Judge, Ropar. The learned District Judge, vide his judgment dated 11.11.1989 enhanced the amount of compensation of 2700 eucalyptus trees from Rs. 1,50,471/- to Rs. 1,89,000/-.
In addition, the claimants were held entitled to payment of solatium at the rate of 30% of the market value besides an additional amount at the rate of 12% per annum u/s 23(1-A) of the Act. They were also held to be entitled to payment of interest as per Section 28 of the Act.
Still aggrieved against the judgment of the District Judge, Ropar, the claimants have filed an appeal in the High Court u/s 54 of the Act.
The learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that the compensation awarded by the learned District Judge is on a very lower side. He further emphasises that the Appellants were entitled to the compensation not only for the first season but for the second season also of the eucalyptus trees. He hay cited Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr. 1990 (1) RRR, 2, in order to substantiate his contention.
Counsel for both the parties have been heard.
There is no dispute so far as the number of trees is concerned. The dispute is about the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned District Judge. I find that the compensation awarded for the eucalyptus trees is on a lower side. The Collector has awarded Rs. 1,50,471/- for 2700 trees. Admittedly, the eucalyptus plant can yield three crops but the Appellants in the case in hand have been compensated for one crop only.
It has come in evidence that eucalyptus tree normally yields three crops. Eucalyptus tree matures in period of 8 to 15 years. The second crop matures a year advance of the period mentioned above whereas the third crop is belated by one year and the value of eucalyptus tree varies from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 300/- per tree. It is thus, worth noting that the claimant has to wait for atleast about 30 years more for getting all the three crops as the eucalyptus trees in the case in hand were about four years old at the time of their acquisition.
Taking into consideration that the compensation is being paid in lumpsum and about 25 years prior to the actual yield of three crops it can be safely stated that the compensation of two crops would meet the ends of justice for fixing the compensation of the acquired eucalyptus trees. The market value of 2700 eucalyptus tree then would come to Rs. 3,00,942/-. While reaching this decision, I am fortified by the judgment of this Court in Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr. (Supra) Thus, I order the enhancement of the compensation of the eucalyptus trees to Rs. 3,00,942/-.
In addition, the Appellants will be entitled to the payment of solatium at the rate of 30% of the market value besides an additional amount at the rate of 12% per annum u/s 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act. The Appellants will also be entitled to payment of interest as per Section 28 of the land Acquisition Act. Consequently, the appeal is accepted to the extent indicated above.