The High Court dismissed the appeal of land owners against an award for enhancement of compensation for trees on acquired land. The court held that appellants failed to discharge the onus of proving the number of trees claimed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
R.F.A. No. 2057 of 1994
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
R.F.A. No. 2057 of 1994 (O&M)
Date of decision : 9.2.2011
Banta Singh and others
.... Appellants
vs
The State of Punjab
.... Respondent
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present:Mr. Malkeet Singh, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
RAJESH BINDAL, J
The land owners are in appeal before this Court against the award of the learned court below passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') seeking enhancement of compensation for the trees existing on the acquired land.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that land along with trees, superstructure belonging to the appellants situated in village Sohana, Hadbast No. 35, District Ropar (Now District Mohali) was acquired by the State of Punjab, for public purpose, vide notification dated 19.11.1980 issued under Section 4 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, the Collector') assessed the value of the trees. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the claimants filed objections, which were referred to learned Additional District Judge, Ropar. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 11.4.1994 assessed the compensation at 10,300/-. It is this award which is impugned in the present appeal.
The main dispute in the present appeal is regarding the number of trees. The claim of the appellants are that the respondent department had acquired six mango trees amounting to ` 30,900/-, whereas the claim of the respondent is that only two mango trees were acquired. The onus to prove the number of trees was on the appellants but they had failed to discharge
R.F.A. No. 2057 of 1994
(2)
the same. In the absence of such an evidence, the learned court below considered the price as claimed by the appellants for the trees and the quantity of trees as was given by the respondent and assessed the compensation. Further more the learned counsel for the appellants could not point out any relevant evidence which the appellants had led before the learned court below and not considered by it.
In view of the above, no case for enhancement is made out. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
9.2.2011 vs.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal for enhancement of compensation, specifically regarding the number of trees, is maintainable in light of the appellants' failure to prove the quantum of acquisition.
Whether relevant evidence led by the appellants was considered by the court below.
Banta Singh and others
The State of Punjab
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
