Partly allowed

Nirmal Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Mar 2013RFA/2917/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed appeals by landowners in reference cases under the Land Acquisition Act. The court modified awards by enhancing compensation for underground pipes laid by owners, holding prior depreciation calculated by the Reference Court to be erroneous. Benefits under Sections 23(2) and 28 were also accorded.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 1,22,500, Rs. 1,61,280, and Rs. 79,660 for the respective appellants; benefits of Section 23(2) and 28 allowed.

Nirmal Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

RFA No.2917 of 2002

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RFA No.2917 of 2002 Date of Decision. 05 .03.2013

¶5

Nirmal Singh son of Kehar Singh and others

¶6

.....Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab through District Collector, Jalandhar and others

¶9

.......Respondents

¶10

Present: Mr. Atul Jain, Advocate for the appellants.

¶11

None for the respondents.

¶12

RFA Nos.2918 to 2920 of 2002

¶13

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶14

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No

¶15

To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No

¶16

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No

¶17

-.-

¶18

K. KANNAN J.

¶19

All these appeals relate to claim for enhancement of compensation already assessed by acquisition of land that contained trees of various types as well as certain underground pipes laying of which had invoked the land owners in substantial expenses. While determining the value of trees, the Reference Court had relied on Horticulture Inspector's report and since I had difficulties in understanding the basis on which the valuation had been given, I had reopened the case and posted it for arguments. There was no attempt either of the Government or of the private parties to assist the Court to bring better details and after adjournment of hearing, I found that there is no purpose in giving any further opportunity to the respective parties and therefore, proceeded to determine the compensation on the basis of materials available and

¶20

RFA No.2917 of 2002

¶21

-2-

¶22

examine whether the Reference Court had committed any serious error in subjecting awards for a reappraisal in appeal.

¶23

RFA No.2917 of 2002 refers to the property of Kehar Singh later prosecuted at the instance of his legal representatives Nirmal Singh and others, which was the subject of adjudication in LAC No.153 of 1995. RFA No.2918 of 2002 is for acquisition of property of Kartar Singh, which was the subject of consideration in LAC No.158 of 1991. The appeals in RFA Nos.2919 and 2920 of 2002 are for acquisition of property of Teja Singh against the determination of compensation in LAC No.161 and 162 of 1997.

¶24

In the property of Kehar Singh, the contention was that there were 88 nashpati trees and 5 mango trees. The land owner had claimed that he had 1/3^rd share in respect of property measuring 8 kanals 8 marlas acquired in the scheme and had spent 25,000/- on levelling the ground and making it fit for plantation. He also contended that he had had laid underground pipes of length of 875 mtrs with 9” breadth for watering the plants. The Land Acquisition Collector had allowed 1000/- for each nashpati tree and 132/- for mango tree. The Land Acquisition Collector had allowed 8,000/- for fuel value. The claim before the Reference Court was that the fuel value of each mango tree must be assessed at 11,000/and 4,000/- for nashpati tree. The land owner had also claimed damages for loss of his income at 25,000/- and 45,000/- as cost of laying the pipes that included the installation charges. Apart from the damages which he had claimed at 25,000/-, he had also claimed 50,000/- for the loss of profits.

¶25

As regards the claim of Kartar Singh, which is the subject of adjudication in RFA No.2918 of 2002, the contention by the land owner was that he had also held 1/3^rd share in 8 kanals 8 marlas of acquired land and

¶26

RFA No.2917 of 2002

¶27

-3-

¶28

his claim was more or less similar to the claim made by Kehar Singh as regards the number of nashpati trees and mango trees and the other details with reference to the damages and the value of crops.

¶29

Teja Singh, who was the land owner in two other appeals namely RFA Nos.2919 and 2920 of 2002 contended that his land measured 35 kanals 2 marlas and he had a 1/3^rd share out of 8 kanals 8 marlas, which was acquired in respect of which the appellants in other two cases referred to above had also staked their interest. As far as his holding with reference to 35 kanals 2 marals, the land owner's contention was that there were 404 fruit bearing amrood ( guava) trees, 9 mango trees and 3 lemon trees. His contention was that he had spent 1 lac on levelling this land and 2.70 lacs for installing underground pipes, which were more than 800 mtrs. He claimed 11,000/- for mango trees, 3,000/- for amrood trees and 6,000/- for lemon trees vis-a-vis claiming a compensation of Rs.2 lacs for the underground pipes and 35 lacs for the loss of cultivation for seven years on his 10 acres of land when his other 25 acres of land having irrigation facility was acquired.

¶30

It could be noticed that determination of compensation for 8 kanals 8 marlas of land with 88 nashpati trees and mango trees would render the adjudication complete with reference to the appeals in RFA Nos.2917 and 2918 and a portion of the claim in RFA Nos.2919 and 2920 since the land owners had claimed 1/3^rd share in respect of the same property. The Reference Court while referring to the number of trees in the lands found that there was no dispute from either of the parties on their numbers and referred to Ex.R1, R3 and R4, which were reports of the Horticulture Department Nirmal Singh, Senior Assistant, Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation. He appeared as RW1 and had given

¶31

RFA No.2917 of 2002

¶32

-4-

¶33

evidence with reference to his report Ex.R1. Mohan Singh, Patwari, Industries Department had appeared as RW2 and proved assessment report Ex.R3 while Jagdev Singh of Horticulture Development Department has proved the assessment report Ex.R4. The land owners themselves had given evidence about their own assessments. Kehar Singh, who appeared as PW4, had stated that the value of the timber of guava and nashpati trees would be 5,000/- each leaving aside the value of fruits while the value of timber of mango trees would be 11,000/- per tree. Finding that was merely an oral assertion by the witnesses that the value of timber as assessed by the State department officials was not correct, the land owners themselves had not put any better quality of evidence, the Reference Court had observed that it was not possible to accept the land owners' claim for an enhancement. The Reference Court found that there was no scope for enhancing the claim for compensation for value of trees or timber.

¶34

I affirm the decision already made. I have no better details to reappraise the compensation with reference to the value of the yield from the trees and the value of timber and therefore, I affirm the finding rendered by the Reference Court as regards the same. 8. The other portion of dispute for adjudication was with reference to the expenses incurred for levelling the ground. The Reference Court had observed that there were no details let in with regard to the same and therefore, declined to assess any damages for the same. I cannot make any provision for the same and I affirm the finding already rendered.

¶35

As regards the value of improvements made by laying underground pipes, the Reference Court referred to the evidence of PW5, Naranjan who spoke to the fact that in the land of Kartar Singh, the underground pipes had been laid to an extent of 569 mtrs and in the case of

¶36

RFA No.2917 of 2002

¶37

-5-

¶38

Kehar Singh's land it was 875 mtrs. The Reference Court reasoned that the pipes had been laid in the year 1970-71 and the evidence given by the witness was that the pipes would last 25 years and they would require to be re-laid later. The Reference Court, therefore, reasoned that the normal life span would be upto the year 1995-96. Considering the fact that the pipes had been laid in the year 1970-71 and taking note of the fact that Section 4 notification had been issued in the year 1989, the Reference Court held that the expenses per mtr. in the year 1991, if it were to be assessed at 140/- per mtr., there has to be a scaling down of this rate for the life of the pipes which had already gone past 3/4<sup>th</sup> of its life span. It, therefore, took the value of the cost after deduction at 30/- per mtr. and held that for 569 mtrs, the value could have been 17,070/-. It made a further deduction of 4/5<sup>th</sup> on the ground that the pipes are already run up a fairly long span. Similarly for the property of Kehar Singh, the Tribunal assessed as compensation of 26,250/- and made a further depreciation of 4/5^th for determining a compensation of ` 5250/-. The manner of determination of compensation, in my view, is erroneous.

¶39

As regards the claim of Teja Singh, which is the subject of consideration in RFA Nos.2919 and 2920 of 2002, the Reference Court had completely rejected the claim on the ground that Teja Singh had not given any evidence. There could not have been a complete dismissal of the claim when the Reference Court had evidence of Kartar Singh, who appeared as power of attorney for Teja Singh. The Divisional Land Conservation Officer, Jalandhar had in his report dated 01.12.1992 mentioned that Teja Singh had installed the underground pipes in his own land at his expense to a length 1152 mtrs. The total amount for the same ought to have worked out to ` 1,61,280/-.

¶40

-6-

¶41

RFA No.2917 of 2002

¶42

The appellants would point out that there could not have been a deduction because the Collector himself had determined the amount and passed supplementary award as regards the same. There could not have been any deduction of compensation already assessed by the Collector in a reference sought at the instance of the land owners. It will be against the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act itself under Section 25. The respective compensation amounts must have been the entire amount as determined by the Collector through the supplementary awards.

¶43

Consequently, the land owners Kartar Singh, Kehar Singh (deceased) through LRs and Teja Singh would be entitled to 79,660/-, 1,22,500/- and ` 1,61,280/- respectively. This amount would also attract benefits of Section 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. The awards are modified and the appeals are allowed to the above extent.

¶44

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE

¶45

March 05, 2013 Pankaj*

Nirmal Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmal Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manjinder Singh Vs Bhupinder Singh and Ors.

Lalit Garg & Ors. Vs Sweta Rani & Anr.

Rajneesh Kumar Vs Sandeep Kumar Sadana

Dilbag Singh and Ors. Vs Punjab Singh

M/S P.S.Jain and Company Ltd. Vs State of Haryana

Sunil Kumar & Anr. Vs Swaran Singh & Anr.