In a second appeal regarding a civil suit for crop compensation, the Punjab & Haryana High Court noted the appeal was devoid of merit and suffered from delay. The court dismissed the appeal on both merits and procedural grounds.
Second appeal dismissed on merits and on the ground of delay.
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.
-1-
RSA No.5148 of 2011 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.5148 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 02.01.2012
State of Haryana
......Appellant
Vs.
Hari Kishan
...Respondent
CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.
Present: Ms. Tanisha Peshawaria, DAG, Haryana for the appellant.
Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J. (Oral).
The State of Haryana is in second appeal against the judgment dated 26.05.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jind.
Briefly stated, the plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for declaration with the averments that he is owner in possession of the suit land measuring 78 kanals 9 marlas comprised in khewat no.107, khatoni no.121 situated within the revenue estate of village Bura Dehar, Tehsil and District Jind and for the season of 2007, the wheat crop which was sown in the suit land was damaged due to hail-storm and as such he was entitled to compensation for such damage from the Haryana Government. It was pleaded that in terms of letter Ex.DWI/C, the State Government had decided to give compensation to those farmers, whose crops have been damaged and as per this letter, ` 3000/- per acre were to be given for damage to wheat/paddy and cotton crops, where the damage was assessed to be more than 26% but below 50%.
RSA No.5148 of 2011 (O&M)
-2-
In case of other crops, this amount was fixed at 2000/- per acre. Likewise in case of damage being more than 50% but below 75%, the compensation amount was fixed at 4000/- per acre and 3000/- per acre respectively. In case of total damage, the compensation quantified was 5000/- per acre for wheat/paddy and cotton crops and ` 4000/- per acre for other crops. The pleaded case of the plaintiff/respondent was that their crops had been damaged and in the fresh girdawaris prepared for such purpose, the revenue officer concerned had deliberately and intentionally failed to record the same. The trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 17.11.2009 and being dissatisfied with the same, the plaintiff/respondent filed appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Jind.
The appeal filed by plaintiff/respondent was accepted and he was held entitled to compensation for 26% damages to the crop.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has primarily raised a contention in the present second appeal that no relief could have been granted to the plaintiff/respondent as there was no entry in the special khasra girdawari Ex.DWI/B as regards any damage to the wheat crop.
The first Appellate Court while holding the plaintiff/respondent entitled the compensation has on appreciation of evidence held that the suit land/fields of the plaintiff/respondent are situated in Rectangle No.57, north of the suit land is situated in Rectangle No.41, to the south of Rectangle No.58 and to the east is Rectangle No.56. It has been noticed that PWI Dharambir, Patwari has admitted that damage on account of hail-storm was reported in Rectangle No.56, 58 and 41 i.e. the surrounding fields of the suit land. As such, the first Appellate Court has taken a view that it would not believable that there have been damage to the crops on account of
RSA No.5148 of 2011 (O&M) -3-
hail-storm on all the three sites of the land in question and as such the land of the plaintiff/respondent could not have escaped such damage. Still further, it has been held by the first Appellate Court that the State while opposing the claim of compensation has relied upon the testimony of DWI, who has not even visited the spot.
It is well settled that where from a given set of circumstances, the first Appellate Court for satisfactory reasons has drawn an inference as also a conclusion, the same is binding on the High Court in second appeal. The High Court would only interfere where upon the conclusion drawn by the lower Appellate Court suffered from perversity or was erroneous to the extent of based upon inadmissible evidence or having been arrived at without evidence.
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Mst. Sugani Versus
Rameshwar Das and another 2006 (4) RCR (Civil) 319 as observed in the following terms:
"It is not within the domain of the High Court to investigate the grounds on which the findings were arrived at, by the last court of fact. It is true that the lower appellate court should not ordinarily reject witnesses accepted by the trial court in respoect of credibility but even where it has rejected the witnesses accepted by the trial court, the same is no ground for interference in second appeal, when it is found that the appellate court has given satisfactory reasons for doing so. In a case where from a given set of circumstances two inferences are possible. One drawn by the lower appellate court is binding on the High Court in second appeal. Adopting any other approach is not permisible. The High Court cannot substitute its opinion for the opinion of the first appellate court unloess it is found that the conclusions drawn by the lower appellate court were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law applicable or
RSA No.5148 of 2011 (O&M)
-4-
its settled position on the basis of pronouncements made by the Apex Court, or was based upon inadmissible evidence or arrived at without evidence."
There is no question of law much less substantial question of law has been raised for determination in the present second appeal.
Apart from merits, there is a delay of 116 days in filing the instant second appeal for which CM No.15011/C/2011 has been filed, seeking condonation. Even the reasons cited in the application seeking condonation are totally vague.
Accordingly, the instant second appeal being devoid of any merit and is dismissed on merit as well as on the ground of delay.
Appeal dismissed.
January 02, 2011 (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) harjeet JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower appellate court was perverse in holding the suit land damaged by hailstorm based on surrounding circumstances.
Whether a substantial question of law arises in this second appeal regarding the compensation claim.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mst. Sugani Versus Rameshwar Das and anotherExplained¶26
Mst. Sugani Versus Rameshwar Das and another 2006 (4) RCR (Civil) 319
State of Haryana
Hari Kishan
Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
