Pritam Devi Prito vs State of Punjab and anr.

J.S. Sekhon, J.

This judgment will dispose of R.F. As. Nos. 1704, 2131, 2181 of 1984 and R.F.A.No. 55 of 1985, as these arises out of the same award of the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, and rest upon the same evidence.

In brief, the facts are that in pursuance of notification published on 25th February, 1981, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), some land including the land of the appellants in the present appeals, falling in the revenue estate of village Raili, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur, was acquired for the Mukerian Hydel Channel Project by the State of Punjab. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated 13th August,1981, awarded compensation of the acquired land as under :

(1)

Barani land...

Rs. 12743.36 P. per Acre

(2)

Banjar Qadim land...

Rs. 6371.68 P. per Acre

Plus 3 per cent of the value thus calculated.

The Land Acquisition Collector also awarded Rs. 48850/ as compensation for the trees standing on the acquired land of Mst. Pritam Devi, who has preferred R.F.A. No. 1704 of 1984. Being dissatisfied with the adequacy of the compensation of their acquired land and trees etc., all the landowners successfully sought references under Section 18 of the Act to the Court of the District Judge, Hoshiarpur. All these references were disposed of by the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide his award dated 29th March, 1984. On the basis of an earlier award relating to the acquired land of the adjoining village Bhallowal, copy Exhibit A. 20 dated 24th March, 1983 of Shri Bhagwan Singh, Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, the compensation of the land was enhanced as under :

(1)

Barani...

Rs. 21080/ per Acre.

(2)

Banjar Qadim...

Rs. 10540/ per Acre.

The compensation of the trees growing on the acquired land was not enhanced. The claimants were also held entitled to solatium at the rate of 15% of the market value of the acquired land. They were also entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the compensation of their land from the date of their dispossession. Still being dissatisfied with the adequacy of the compensation awarded by the Additional District Judge, all the claimants have come up in this court by filing these appeals.

Vide detailed order dated 3rd November, 1988, this Court allowed the application for additional evidence in order to produce saledeed, Exhibit AA/1, corresponding to mutation P.16 on the file, as in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in State of Punjab v. Pohu and another, 1986 RRR 228 (P&H) : 1986 Punjab & Haryana 143 rendering the certified copies of mutations as inadmissible in evidence for assessing the terms and conditions of the relevant sale transactions.

Mr. G.S. Jaswal, learned counsel for the appellants, contended that the saledeed, Exhibit AA/1 corresponding to Mutation Ex. P. 16, relied upon by the lower Court was wrongly ignored even though it related to the land which adjoins the acquired land. Thus, he maintains that compensation at the rate of Rs. 32,000/ per acre for Barani land should have been awarded. Mr. K.P. Bhandari, the then learned Advocate General, on the other hand, contended that the parties had themselves relied upon the award, Exhibit P.20 relating to the adjoining village Bhallowal and the Additional District Judge had allowed the compensation on its basis. Thus, he maintains that compensation of the acquired land was consistently awarded by the learned Additional District Judge. He also referred to a Single Bench decision of this Court in R.F.A. No. 1877 of 1984 (State of Punjab v. Amar Nath and others), dated 30th January, 1987, relating to the acquired land of village Bamboowal and Sunderpur, wherein compensation of Barani land was awarded at the rate of Rs. 16,000/ per acre of Gair Mumkin at the rate of Rs. 12000/ per acre.

There is no dispute that the claimants did rely before the lower Court on the mutation transaction. Exhibit A. 1 as well as of the copy of the award Exhibit P.20 of Shri Bhagwan Singh, Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, relating to the acquired land of village Bhallowal. Thus, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the claimants relied upon the above referred award only for assessing the market value or compensation of the acquired land, although the learned Additional District Judge did base is impugned award on the basis of the earlier award Exhibit P.20, was the land of village Bhallowal adjoins the acquired land in the case in hand. The perusal of saledeed Ex. AA/1 dated 27th August 1973, reveals that land measuring 1 Kanal forming part of Khasra No. 13 of Rectangle No. 12 of this very village Raili was sold for Rs. 4000/ i.e. at the rate of Rs. 32,000/ per acre. It was also a Barani land and sold to the Cooperative Agricultural Service Society for the construction of Godown. Copy of the Aks Shajra, Exhibit R.5 reveals that the land subject matter of this saledeed falls along the road and adjoins the required land on the other side. The very factum that this land was purchased for the construction of a Godown by the Cooperative Society leaves no doubt that this portion of the land out of the entire Khasra No. 13 must be touching the main road. Under these circumstances, this saledeed pertaining to only 1 Kanal of land, would not be the genuine basis to assess the market value of huge tracts of acquired land, unless a suitable cut of 33% is applied. If that is done then the value of the Barani land would almost be the same as awarded by the lower Court. Thus, this saledeed is of no help to the appellants in the present appeals.

Regarding the compensation of Banjar Qadim land which is admittedly under the roads and passages owned by the Gram Panchayat of village Raili, it transpires that in Amar Nath''s Case (supra), 3/4th of the market value of the Barani land was awarded as compensation of the Gair Mumkin land. Thus, the awarding of half the compensation of the Gair Mumkin land from that of the Barani land appears to be unjustifiable. So the compensation of the Gair Mumkin land is required to be assessed at 3/4th of the Barani land was awarded as compensation of the Gair Mumkin land. Thus, the awarding of half the compensation of the Gair Mumkin land from that of the Barani land appears to be unjustifiable. The market price of the Gair Mumkin land would work upto Rs. 15810/ per acre and the claimants are held to be entitled to the same.

Regarding the compensation of the trees growing on the acquired land of Mst. Pritam Devi, the learned counsel for the appellants had laid much stress on the admission of Shri Surain Singh, Deputy Ranger (R.W. 6). The perusal of his statement shows that during his cross examination, he stated that eucalyptus trees after its growth between 8 to 10 years, can fetch Rs. 200/ to Rs. 250/. He further admitted that out of the total trees, 373 were eucalyptus trees, about 214 trees were of the girth of 30 centimetres and upward girth, while the remaining were below the girth of 30 centimeters. He also stated that normally the girth of a tree reaches upto 30 centimetres after three years and the first crop is ready after 8 to 10 years after its plaintation. He also stated that eucalyptus trees yield three to four crops depending upon the condition of the soil. He also prepared detailed reports in this regard. Exhibits R. 6/1, 2 and 3. The learned Additional District Judge, in para No. 9 of the judgment has given details of the awarding of compensation of eucalyptus trees and other trees as under :

"Coming to the eucalyptus trees numbering 377, Shisham trees 102 Shrin trees 13 and Dek tree 1 it was argued that each eucalyptus tree could be sold for Rs. 200/ on its full growth after 8 to 10 years as admitted by R.W. 6 Surain Singh Deputy Ranger. It was further submitted that each tree could give 3 to 4 crops and thus in a period of 40 years each eucalyptus tree could give income of Rs. 800/. Shri J.P. Gupta wanted me to award compensation of eucalyptus trees at this rate. But in opinion the argument of the learned counsel is misconceived. If the land cannot remain in possession of the landowner for 40 years then how he can be expected to earn its income during that period. The value of the trees is to be ascertained today and not after 40 years. Therefore, I do not find any logic in the argument advanced and thus I am not inclined to enhance the compensation. The claimant had already been awarded Rs. 48850/ as compensation of trees. This issue is decided accordingly in favour of the claimants."

Thus the learned Additional District Judge while affirming the compensation of the trees as awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, by holding that compensation for four crops of eucalyptus trees cannot be awarded as it will yield four crops during a span of 40 years. The claimants have examined Shri Daljit Singh, Forest Ranger (A.W. 2) for assessing the compensation regarding these trees. He had submitted his report Ex. A. 2 after visiting the spot on 3rd June, 1983. In fact he has produced list Ex. A.2 while appearing in the Court itself although it was prepared by the Forest Guard. He alleges having visited the spot himself and had given the growth of the trees, but all the same he having not obtained the permission of his Divisional Forest Officer for visiting the spot or having not charged any fee on behalf of the Government from the claimants for doing the needful, it is doubtful whether in fact he had visited the spot or not or simply countersigned the report of the Forest Guard. Starnge enough, the concerned Forest Guard was not examined by the claimants. Due to lack of satisfactory evidence, it cannot be said that the claimants were awarded inadequate compensation of the trees growing on the acquired land.

Regarding the fruit trees growing on the land of Smt. Pritam Devi, only three mango trees were at the fruit bearing stage according to Sutantar Kumar (A.W. 3). He has estimated the value of these fruit trees at Rs. 1385/ in his report Ex. A. 3. During crossexamination, he admitted that all these trees were nongrafted and that such like trees start giving fruit in the 8th year of its plantation. The persual of the report, Ex. A. 3 shows that Shri Sutantar Kumar (A.W. 3) had not taken into consideration the expenses incurred on growing and rearing such trees. Admittedly, the expenses incurred on growing and looking after the trees has to be taken into consideration the expense incurred and looking after the trees has to be taken into consideration while assessing their compensation. Thus, under these circumstances it cannot be said that the Additional District Judge has awarded inadequate compensation of the fruit trees grown on the acquired land of Mst. Pritam Devi.

For the foregoing reasons, the compensation of the Banjar Qadim land of the claimants is enhanced to Rs. 15810/ per acre from Rs. 10540/ per acre, by accepting the concerned appeals partly to this extent. There is, however, no order as to costs. The claimants shall also be entitled to all the benefits of the amended provisions of the Act. They shall also be entitled to 30 % solatium over and above the said compensation, besides allowing an amount equal to 12 % per annum over and above the compensation from the date of notification under section 4 of the Act till the date of the pronouncement of the award by the Land Acquisition Collector or taking of the possession of the land, whichever is earlier. The claimant shall also be entitled to 9% per annum interest on the said compensation for the first year from the date of delivery of possession of the land and 15% per annum for the subsequent years.

Appeal partly accepted.