Urmila Kakar vs State of Haryana

Dr. (Mrs.) Sarojnei Saksena, J.—The appellants have filed this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the order of G.C. Mittal, J. dated 3.9.1987 passed in Regular First Appeal No. 1323 of 1983.

Brief facts of the case are that vide notification No. LAC(P)NTLA73/2161 dated 22.6.1973 published in the Haryana Government Gazette (Extraordinary) on the same date under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act No. 1 of 1894 (in short the ''Act''), the Haryana Government notified that the land (subject matter of the award dated 12.12.1978 of the Land Acquisition Collector, Panchkula, Urban Estate, Haryana, Chandigarh) was likely to be acquired for the public purpose, namely, for the development and utilisation of land as residential/commercial and Industrial Areas in the Urban Estates (Panchkula) to be set up in the area of village Raily, Tehsil Kalka, District Ambala. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 8.6.1976 whereby the government declared that it was satisfied that the land under acquisition was needed at public expenses for the aforesaid public purpose. The area given in the notification under Section 6 of the Act was 1963 Kanals 15 Marlas (245.47 acres) but the Collector gave award with regard to the area measuring 308 Kanals 14 Marlas (38.59 Standard Acres only), the balance area having already been acquired.

The Collector vide his award dated 12.12.1978 awarded compensation of Abi Bagh Chahi/Chahi/Gair Mumkin tubewell and Makan type of acquired land at the rate of Rs. 12,256/ per acre, whereas lesser amount of compensation was awarded for inferior types of acquired land. The land measuring 72 Kanals8 Marlas of Chahi, Bagh Chahi Abi and Gair Mumkin Makan situated in village Raily belonging to the claimantappellants was acquired for which the Collector awarded compensation at the aforementioned rate. Besides the land, the compensation amount was also granted for the fruit trees standing on the acquired land at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Act.

Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Collector, the claimantappellants submitted reference petition under Section 18 of the Act for determination of the market value of the acquired land and fruit trees. The Collector made the reference to the Court of District Judge, Ambala. The claimants demanded the compensation of the land at the rate of Rs. 30/ per Square Yard and an amount of Rs. 30,000/ on account of compensation of fruit trees averring that the Land Acquisition Collector has awarded a very inadequate and unreasonable compensation for their acquired land and fruit trees. The Haryana State in its written statement submitted that the Land Acquisition Collector has awarded sufficient and just compensation of the acquired property on the basis of the prevalent market value. Hence, no enhancement in compensation is called for.

On these pleadings, the reference court framed issues, recorded evidence. The reference Court held that the claimants are entitled to compensation for their acquired land at a uniform rate of Rs. 23,750/ per acre, besides a solatium at the rate of 15% on the enhanced amount of compensation and interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of taking of the possession of the acquired land from the claimants till actual payment were also awarded.

Being aggrieved by the said reference judgment, the claimantappellants filed Regular First Appeal No. 1323 of 1983 and claimed further enhancement.

After hearing the learned counsel, the learned Single Judge G.C. Mittal, J., held that no further enhancement is permissible for the acquired land as reference Court has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 23,750/ per acre on the basis of decision of this Court. He further held that claimants would be entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% instead of 15 per cent and interest at the rate of 9% per annum for one year from the date of taking of possession and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till recovery. No order was passed with regard to additional compensation under Section 23(1A) of the Act as amended by 1984 Act, as till then the matter was pending consideration before a Full Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 773 of 1982. The learned Single Judge also held that the Additional District Judge has referred in his award that the Land Acquisition Collector awarded Rs. 1,01,930.71 as compensation, though for the fruit bearing trees, the claimants are claiming Rs. 30,000/ but no issue was framed regarding market price of the fruit bearing trees. Since no issue was framed, no evidence was led by the parties on the market price of the fruit bearing trees. By a separate order, the claimants were allowed to amend the reference application and the Memo of appeal so as to claim Rs. 4 lacs as compensation for the fruit bearing trees and the case was remitted to the Reference Court under Order 41 Rule 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure to decide the said issue after giving an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence on the same. The reference Court gave an opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence. He decided this issue vide his order dated 29.4.1987 and held that the value of Rs. 88635.40 assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector for the fruit bearing trees growing on the land of the claimants is on the lower side which is to be increased by 100% in view of the judgment rendered in Ranjit Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, A.I.R. 1983 Punjab and Haryana 308. Hence, he assessed the market value of the fruit bearing trees standing on the acquired land at Rs. 1,77,270.80 and held that the claimants are entitled to that much compensation for the aforesaid trees in addition to solatium and interest at statutory rates. He remitted this finding to the learned Single Judge.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge held that the report submitted by the Reference Court deserves to be accepted.

The learned Single Judge held that in addition to the price of the acquired land, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 1,77,270.80 for the fruit bearing trees. The claimants'' appeal to this extent was allowed with costs. The claimants were also held entitled to 30 per cent solatium on the market price with interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till realisation. The claimants were also awarded an additional amount of 12 per cent under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by 1984 Act, on the market price of the trees with effect from the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act till the award of the Land Acquisition Collector or the date of taking of possession, whichever is earlier.

As regards the land, the claimants were allowed market price at the rate of Rs. 23,750/ per acre and no enhancement on this count was allowed.

The claimantappellants have filed this Letters Patent Appeal against the aforementioned judgment. The appellants'' learned counsel at the very outset candidly admitted that the market rate of the acquired land assessed at the rate of Rs. 23,750/ per acre has been approved by the Court and which has also been affirmed by the Apex Court. Therefore, the claimantappellants are not challenging the market rate of the acquired land and compensation awarded thereon.

But relying on Ranjit Singh''s case (supra) the learned counsel submitted that at that time 100% increase was awarded on the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. So far as market value of the fruit bearing trees is concerned, by now 14 years have elapsed, therefore, much more compensation than Rs. 1,77,270.80 should have been awarded for these fruit bearing trees. He argued with all vehemence at his command that the Courts below have not taken into consideration the evidence adduced by the claimants. These furit bearing trees were permanent source of income to claimants. Even their timber fetches some price. Therefore, he submitted that Rs. 4 lacs compensation was rightly claimed by the appellantclaimants by amending their Memo of Appeal and petition for reference. The learned reference Judge has not appreciated the statement of Karam Singh, PW, who was a Contractor for purchasing the fruits of the trees in auction. He stated that he used to pay Rs. 45,000/ to the claimants per year, which comes to Rs. 5 lacs for 10 years. His evidence was not accepted by the reference Judge on the count that he has not maintained any account. Since it was after 8 years, he was examined, it is very difficult on his part to remember all these things, but the reference Judge failed to consider this factual position. The learned reference Judge has also not appreciated the statement of Smt. Urmila Kakar appellant, who stated categorically that the fruit bearing trees were being auctioned to Shri Karam Singh and the number of these trees were 183 Mango, 379 Guava and 169 Angul Bails. The learned reference Judge has also not taken into consideration the statement of Shir Kashmira Singh AW3, Horticulture Development Officer, who gave the report. According to him, value of the fruit bearing trees is Rs. 5,02,516.40 which includes 10 per cent premium and fuel value of trees. In his report, he himself has given the profit of grapes, mango trees and gauva trees each year per each tree. The learned reference Judge has ignored this formula and has accepted the formula laid down in the case of Ranjit Singh''s case (supra). The learned Judge has relied on the book titled Basic Principles and Methods of Evaluation of Fruit Trees, published by S. Harbans Singh, formerly Director Horticulture Himachal Pradesh, but has not taken into consideration the latest report and thus has failed to determine the market value of the fruit bearing trees properly. Thus, he submitted that the compensation on the fruit bearing trees be enhanced to Rs. 3,20,000/ over and above the compensation given by the Hon''ble Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has not at all discussed and weighed the evidence adduced by the claimantappellants.

Respondent''s learned counsel supported the impugned judgment and contended that the learned Single Judge has rightly awarded compensation for the fruit bearing trees relying on the judgment in Ranjit Singh''s case (supra).

After hearing the rival contentions, in our considered view, the appeal deserves to be partly allowed.

No doubt, the learned single judge has not discussed evidence adduced by the parties on the market value of the fruit bearing trees but reference Court has discussed the evidence and has disbelieved the evidence adduced by the claimants to prove the market rate of these fruit bearing trees. The appellantUrmila Kakkar, AW1, stated that these trees used to fetch Rs. 40,000/ in auction, but during crossexamination, she was unable to give the name of the Collector (Contractor ?) through whom fruit bearing trees were auctioned. She admitted that she was maintaining accounts, but could not produce them. She has no expertise knowledge in Horticulture. ContractorKaram Singh AW2 was examined by the appellantclaimants, who stated that he used to pay Rs. 45,000/ to the claimants per year as he used to purchase fruits of all these trees in auction, but he has not maintained any account. He claimed that he purchased fruits of these trees in auction from 1971 to 1978, but Smt. Urmila Kakkar could not name this Contractor. Therefore, the Reference Court has not relied on the statement of both these witnesses. The statement of Kashmira Singh AW5 is also not relied on by the Reference Court, as this witness based his statement on the formula contained in a booklet captioned "Evaluation of fruit trees A formula" published by the Department of Horticulture, Punjab, Chandigarh. This formula was evolved on 15.5.1985. He admitted that he visited the orchard on 13.3.1987; the acquisition relates to the year 1983; the notification was issued in June, 1973 and the Land Acquisition Collector gave award on 12.12.1978. The land has since been developed for residential and commercial plots, including roads and only thirty mango trees are standing at the spot. Hence, in our considered view, the Reference Court has rightly not accepted the sworn testimony of these witnesses and has rightly relied on the judgment of Ranjit Singh''s case (supra) and has given 100% increase. By now 14 years have elapsed; therefore, when Ranjit Singh''s judgment was delivered, it considered that after 10 years 100% increase should have been made in the amount of compensation. Therefore, applying the same formula, in our considered view, the claimantappellants are entitled to an increase of 140% on the value of these fruit bearing trees assessed by the Reference Court at Rs. 1,77,270.80 Hence, in our considered view, the claimants are entitled to get an increase by Rs. 70,268.32 and the total compensation amount comes to Rs. 2,48,179.12 (Rs. 1,77,270.80 + Rs. 70,908.32 (increase) = Rs. 2,48,179.12), which the claimantappellants are entitled to get as compensation for the fruit hearing trees.

In view of the above findings, we also hold that the claimants would be entitled to get 30% solatium on the enhanced price of fruit bearing trees along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year and 15% per year till realisation. They are also entitled to get an additional amount at the rate of 12% per annum under Section 23(1A) of the Act on the market price of the trees w.e.f. the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act till the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession, whichever is earlier. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.