1

[Non-Reportable] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 488  OF 2018

(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 2223 of 2017)

State of Punjab and Ors. ...........Appellants

Versus

Thuru Ram         ........Respondent

J U D G M E N T

MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.

Leave granted.

2. The  Judgment

dated

06.05.2015

passed  by  the

High  Court  of

Punjab  &

Haryana  at

Chandigarh  in

R.F.A. No. 2435

2

of  1996  is

called  in

question by the

State of Punjab

on  the  ground

that  the

compensation

ordered  to  be

paid  in  respect

of  the  fruit

trees  standing

on the acquired

land is liable to

be  reduced

substantially.  3. Land  of  the

respondent was

acquired  along

with  trees

standing  on  it

for

construction  of

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

along  with

other  statutory

benefits  as  per

Sections

23(1-A),  23(2)

and  28  of  the

Act. Hence, this

appeal  by  the

State.  4. Heard  the

parties.   The

counsel  for

appellant

taking  us

through  the

material  on

record  submits

that  the

judgment of the

High  Court  is

liable  to  be  set

aside inasmuch

7

as  it  has  not

considered  the

evidence  in

proper

perspective

while coming to

the  conclusion.

She has drawn

our attention to

certain

paragraphs  of

the judgment of

the  reference

court  in

support  of  the

said

contention.  Per

contra,  learned

advocate for the

respondent

argued  in

8

support  of  the

judgment of the

High Court.  5. The

respondent/the

claimant  relied

upon  Exhibit

A.1.  i.e.  the

assessment

report  of  AW-2

prepared by an

expert,  in

support  of  his

contention

seeking

enhancement.

On  the  other

hand, the State

relied upon the

opinion  of

another  expert

i.e.  RW-2  (the

9

report  of  RW-2

is  at  Exhibit

R.1.) to contend

that  the

respondent  is

not  entitled  for

compensation

as  sought  in

respect  of  the

trees.  6. According  to

respondent,

396  fruit  trees

were  standing

on the acquired

land  of  the

respondent.

They  were,

orange  28,

peach  76,

mausami  135

and  mango

10

157.  The Land

Acquisition

Collector

awarded  total

compensation

of  Rs.

37,321.12

including  30

percent

solatium  and

12  percent

increase  in

respect of such

fruit  trees.   As

mentioned

supra,  the

reference  court

on  evaluating

the material on

record

confirmed  the

11

award  of  the

Land

Acquisition

Collector.  7. 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

12

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

him.

13

Per 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-2. 8. The  expert

examined  by

the  respondent

(AW-2)  has

admitted  that

there  was  a

tank for storing

water  and

14

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

15

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

16

contended  by

the respondent. 9. In  view  of  the

above,  it  is

clear  that  the

High Court has

over  looked

certain material

aspects  of  the

evidence  before

coming  to  the

conclusion. The

High  Court

needs  to

consider  the

entire  material

in  proper

perspective

afresh.   Hence,

the matter is to

be  remitted  to

the  High Court

17

of  Punjab  &

Haryana  for

fresh  disposal

in  accordance

with  law.

Ordered

accordingly, the

matter  is

remitted  to  the

High  Court.

The  impugned

judgment is set

aside.   Appeal

stands

disposed  off

accordingly.  

.................................................J. (ARUN MISHRA)

.................................................J. (MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR)

New Delhi Dated: January 19, 2018