- (1.) IN order to encourage industrialization, in 1974, the State of Rajasthan had acquired land in village Jhareda, District Alwar, for the benefit of Rajasthan INdustrial Development and INvestment Corporation Limited (henceforth to be referred as "riico" for short ). According to the notification published on 13. 9. 74, the State had proposed to acquire appellant's 25 Bigha of land. On 25. 12. 74, the possession of the said land was handed over to RIICO. The appellant participated in the acquisition proceeding/before the Land Acquisition Officer (henceforth to be referred as "lao" for short ). Vide award dated 19. 5. 1975, the LAO directed that by way of compensation Rs. 1,25,000/- should be paid to the appellant.
(2.) SINCE the appellant was aggrieved by the said award, he submitted an application before the LAO and prayed that the compensation for the land should be Rs. 5,000/- per Bigha instead of Rs. 2,500/- per Bigha as decided by the LAO. He further prayed that the compensation for the structures constructed alongwith the well should also be paid to him. Moreover, according to him, no compensation was paid for the eight trees which were standing on his land, Further, he claimed that no compensation was paid for the removal of pumping set installation, which should have been paid to him. He also requested that the total amount of compensation should be paid alongwith an interest @ 15% p. a. The LAO referred the case to the Civil Judge, Alwar. Vide order dated 23. 7. 92 the learned Civil Judge was pleased to partly allow the reference. While the learned Judge had increased the compensation for the land, he had disallowed any compensation for the trees, for the construction around the well and had refused to increase the compensation for the standing crop. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed the present appeal before us. Shri R. S. Mehta, learned counsel for the appellants, has argued that u/s 23 of the Land Acquisition Act (henceforth to be referred as "the Act"), an interested person is entitled to compensation for the trees standing in his land, for the structures construction around the well such as the water storage tank, the room referred to as `kotari' in which the electric pumping and the electrical connection is contained and lastly for the removal of such electric powers. He also argued that the compensation for the standing crop was given on the basis of report of the Patwari (Ex. 8 ). However, according to him, the compensation has been divided into two parts, namely, for "the good quality crop" and for "the bad quality crop". But no such bifurcation is shown in Ex. 8. Hence, according to Shri Mehta, the learned Civil Judge has misread the evidence on record. Shri S. K. Lehari, learned counsel for the RIICO, has contended that Ex. 8, the report of the Patwari, clearly indicates that six bigha of land were sowed with "good quality crop" and other six bigha of land were sowed with "poor quality of crop". According to him, the said Ex. 8 clearly uses the letter `pu' and the letter `kha' to indicate the Hindi words `pukhta' and `kharab', respectively. While the former refers to "good quality crop", the latter, to "bad quality of crop'. Therefore, according to him the learned Judge has correctly appreciated the evidence on record. Secondly, he has argued that since the trees are attached to the land, therefore the compensation for the land includes the compensation for trees as well. Lastly, he has argued that the compensation for the well includes the compensation for the permanent structures around the well i. e. , water storage tank and the room containing the electric pump. Hence he has supported the impugned order. Having heard learned counsels, we have scanned the record and examined the impugned order. A perusal of Ex. 8 clearly reveals that in his report dated 27. 1. 1975, the Patwari has clearly used the letters `pu' and `kha'. According to the Patwari, six Bigha of land was under cultivation of "good quality crop"-"pukhta". Another six bigha of land was under cultivation of "bad quality of crop"- "kharab". In our considered opinion, the learned Civil Judge was certainly justified in awarding two different compensation for two different qualities of the standing crop. A higher compensation for "good quality" and lower compensation for the "bad quality crop". Thus, as far as the compensation for the standing crop is concerned, the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant has no merit.
(3.) THE LAO has awarded Rs. 8,000/- as compensation for the well, but has not awarded any compensation for the permanent structures around the well. THE learned Judge has observed that the said compensation includes the compensation for the permanent structure. Moreover, he has reasoned that the compensation is reasonable considering the fact that the appellant had used the well for the purpose of irrigation. THE fact that the well had been used by the appellant could not decrease the extent of compensation to be awarded for the said well. After all, a displaced person is not only compensated for being displaced, but is also compensated for his future needs which would arise when he is resettled on another piece of land. In case the compensation of land and the structure therein are being capitalised separately, as in the present case, then a separate compensation should be paid for the structures standing in the land. We are fortified in our view by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tejumal Bhojwani and Ors. vs. State of U. P. {jt 2003 (supp. 2) SC 194} = (RLW 2004 (1) SC 28 ). In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed that separate compensation for tube- well and structure is liable to be paid. Thus in our opinion besides the payment of compensation for the well, compensation for the water storage tank and the room should also be paid. Thus, the compensation of Rs. 8,000/- seems to be on the lower side. We are therefore inclined to grant a compensation of Rs. 3,000/- for the water storage tank and Rs. 3,500/- for the room, besides Rs. 8,000/- already awarded by the LAO and the learned Civil Judge for the well. Moreover, fourthly and fifthly clauses of section 23 of the Act clearly state that while determining the amount of compensation, "the court shall take into consideration the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested,by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting on the other property, movable or immovable in any other manner, or his earning". Furthermore, "if consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Collector, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such change should also be considered". Undoubtedly, when the acquisition of the appellant's land meant the uprooting of the electric pump and the ancillary connecting pipes, it also meant the change of the place of earning his livelihood. Therefore, the LAO should have directed the payment of compensation for the dismantling of the water system. However in the present case neither the LAO nor the learned Civil Judge has awarded any compensation to the appellant. Hence we direct that the compensation of Rs. 3,000/- should be paid to the appellant on account of dismantling of his water pump and pipes and other ancillary irrigation system. Section 23 of the Act would also include the compensation to be paid for the felling of the trees which were standing in the land. The reason given by the learned Civil Judge is unacceptable. For like the trees, the other structures also are attached to the land. But, mere attachment to the land would not deprive the interested person of his legally reasonable compensation. Hence, the LAO and the learned Civil Judge should have awarded a compensation to the appellant. Since the appellant has prayed for Rs. 500/- per tree, we are inclined to direct that Rs. 4000/- should be paid to him for the eight trees. ;