STATE OF K.P. Vs. SHISHI RAM
LAWS(HPH)-1997-4-56
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on April 21,1997

STATE OF K.P. Appellant
VERSUS
SHISHI RAM Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

CHATURBHAI PANDE VS. COLLECTOR RAIGARH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. GURCHARAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

NARBADA DEVI HARLALKA VS. KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(CAL)-2013-7-47] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

KAMLESH SHARMA,J. - (1.)In this appeal the1 State of Himachal f Pradesh has challenged only that part of the award dated 30.4.1987, passed by the District Judge, Shimla. whereby enhanced amount of Rs. 10,000/ -has been awarded to the respondents -claimants as market value of the fruit trees which were uprooted during the course of construction of Astani link road. The respondents -claimants have also filed cross -objections claiming further enhancement of Rs. 20,000/ - towards the market value of the fruit trees over and above the amount awarded by the District Judge.
(2.)The admitted facts in brief are that land comprised in Khasra No. 2587/611/1 measuring 2 -4 bighas belonging to respondent -claimant Shishi Ram and land comprised in Khasra No. 611/14/1 measuring 0.15 biswas belonging to respondent -claimant Raj am Devi, wife of respondent -Shishi Ram, situated in Mauza Astani, Tehsil Rohru, District Shimla, was acquired for the construction of Astani link road by notification dated 1.5.1980 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the Act). The Land Acquisition Collector by his award dated 6.3:1983 awarded a sum of Rs.2089 -78 paise to respondent -claimant Shishi Ram and Rs.431 -25 Paise to respondent -claimant Rajam Devi, wife of Shishi Ram, as compensation of the land. The respondents -claimants did not file reference under Section 18 of the Act against this award. Thereafter, by a supplementary award dated 5.3.1984, the Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation of Rs. 16009 -15 including 15% C.A.C. as market value of 33 standing fruit trees. The respondents -claimants have filed reference under Section 18 of the Act against the supplementary award but claimed enhancement of the market value of the land .at the rate of Rs 20,000/ - per bigha besides the enhancement of the market value of the fruit trees to Rs. 61,000/ -. According to them, the total number of fruit trees, which were standing at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Act, was 61 of the ages of 7 to 9 years. The appellants in their reply have denied that the market value of the fruit trees, as claimed by the respondents -claimants, but admitted that as per the statement of Executive Engineer, H.P. P.W.D. Rohru, who will represented the department during the hearing of objections. 61 fruit trees were involved in acquisition out of which 28 fruit trees got uprooted and only fruit trees were standing at the time of spot inspection by the Land Acquisition Staff, the market value of which was got assessed by the experts of Horticulture Department and paid to the respondents -claimants. It is also that compensation of 28 up -rooted fruit trees would be paid to the respond getting their assessment made from the Horticulture Department. It is decree in the reply that the market value of the acquired land is correctly assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector.
(3.)After framing issues and re -correcting evidence, the District Judge confirmed the market value of the land determined by the Land Acquisition Collector and enhansed the market value of the fruit trees by an amount of 10,000/ - on the ground that admittedly market value of 28 fruit trees which were found on the acquired land in addition to 33 fruit trees was not assessed and paid. Though the District Judge was aware of settled legal position that the market value of the fruit trees was not required to be assessed separately than) the market value of the acquired land and there being an orchard on the acquired land its market value was required to be assessed as an orchard yet in absence of any evidence on record in respect of income from the orchard District Judge could not adopt the method of capitalization for assessing market value of the acquired land and has assessed the market value of acquire land and has assessed the market value of the acquired land and trees separately.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.