S. B. SAKRIKAR, J. ( 1 ) THE plaintiff-appellants have directed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30th August, 1991 passed by IIIrd Addl. District Judge, Ratlam in civil Suit No. 25b/88, thereby dismissing plaintiffs' suit for grant of compensation for the damage caused to their agricultural land as also the mango trees standing in the said agricultural land. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that appellant-plaintiffs are the owners and recorded Bhumiswami of the agricultural land situated in village Bargarh, Tehsil Jaora, District Ratlam bearing Survey No. 120/667, Area 0. 101 hectare and Survey No. 121, area 2. 061, hectares. It is stated in the plaint that on the southern side of the aforesaid agricultural land, three fruit bearing mango trees are standing and owned by the plaintiffs. It is alleged that in 1984, State of M. P. through the p. W. D. , District Ratlam started the work of construction of bargarh-Upparwada road for the use of the-public. The proposed road was constructed near the southern side of the agricultural land held by the plaintiffs. It is stated that during the construction of the said road, the employees of the PWD, Ratlam dug out the soil from the agricultural lands of the plaintiffs by digging pits and tunnels. As a result of digging of the pits and tunnels and taking soil from the agricultural lands of plaintiffs, they caused damage to the roots of the three mango trees standing in the fields of the plaintiffs. The plaintiff objected for the acts of the respondents but they did not stop the work of digging pits and tunnels. The plaintiff ultimately served a notice under Section 80 of C. P. C. on the respondents, claiming Rs. 9,000/- as damage caused to the mango trees and Rs. 44,000/-for the damages caused to the agricultural land of the plaintiffs due to the digging of the pits and tunnels and unauthorisedly taking soil from the plaintiffs agricultural land in the construction of the alleged road. After the expiry of the period of notice, the plaintiffs-appellants have filed suit for the recovery of Rs. 53,000/- by way of damages against the respondents. ( 3 ) THE suit filed by the plaintiffs was resisted on behalf of the respondents on various grounds. After the expiry of the period of notice, the plaintiffs-appellants have filed suit for the recovery of Rs. 53,000/- by way of damages against the respondents. ( 3 ) THE suit filed by the plaintiffs was resisted on behalf of the respondents on various grounds. It was contended on behalf of the respondents that the alleged pits and tunnels are dug on the land belonging to the State government. No pits and tunnels have been dug on the agricultural land belonging to the plaintiff. The defendants also denied that by the act of the employees of the defendant-respondents any damage is caused to the mango trees. The defendants also denied that the mango trees are not standing inside the agricultural lands belonging to plaintiffs and prayed for the dismissal of the suit. ( 4 ) THE learned Trial Court on framing the issues and on appreciation of the evidence of the parties available on the record, dismissed the plaintiffs suit by the impugned judgment. Aggrieved, the appellants have filed this appeal against the impugned judgment and the decree of the Trial Court. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for appellants invited my attention to the certified copy of the panchnama dated 8. 5. 1985 (Ex. P3) as also the Panchnama prepared on the instruction of the Tehsildar, Jaora dated 6. 2. 1985 (Ex. P4)as also the report of the Commissioner dated 4. 2. 1990, appointed by the orders of the Court for spot inspection and also referred statements of plaintiff Nanuram (P. W. 1), Bherusingh (P. W. 2), Bhuarsingh (P. W. 3) and the statements of D. W. 1 Govardhanlal Verma, Sub-Engineer p. W. D. , Jaora land submitted that in view of the aforesaid evidence available on the record, the Trial Court has committed an error in deciding issue Nos. 3 and 5 against the plaintiff. ( 6 ) I have carefully perused the aforesaid documents and the statements of the witnesses. On perusal of Panchnama (Ex. P3), which is prepared in a Revenue Case Nos. 27a-12/84-85 with regard to the demarcation of the agricultural land Survey Nos. 120 and 121 belonging to the plaintiffs. in this Panchnama, it is clearly stated that:"xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx" in Panchnama (Ex. P. 4), it is also mentioned that: "xxx xxx xxx , xxx xxx" ( 7 ) IN the report of the Commissioner dated 4. 2. 27a-12/84-85 with regard to the demarcation of the agricultural land Survey Nos. 120 and 121 belonging to the plaintiffs. in this Panchnama, it is clearly stated that:"xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx" in Panchnama (Ex. P. 4), it is also mentioned that: "xxx xxx xxx , xxx xxx" ( 7 ) IN the report of the Commissioner dated 4. 2. 1990, it is also stated that at the time of spot inspection, the pits and tunnels existing in the agricultural lands of the plaintiffs were measured and the measurement of such tunnel was found to be 100 mtrs. long and 12 mtrs. broad on the western side and 9 mtrs. broad on the eastern side of the fields belonging to plaintiffs. In the report of the commissioner, it is also stated that three old mango trees are standing on the land adjacent to the road and due to the digging of pits, some roots of the mango trees have been cut. Defendants' witness Govardhanlal Verma (D. W. 1), in the cross-examination has admitted that on the side of the road there is foot path which 1-1/2 mtrs. broad and thereafter there is no land belonging to the State Government is available. The tunnels an'd pits dug for obtaining soil are situated beyond the foot path on the side of the road. 7a. From the aforesaid evidence, the case of the plaintiffs is fully established that at the time of the construction of Bargarh-Upparwada road, the employees of the PWD, District ratlam dug some tunnels and pits on the agricultural lands owned by the appellant-plaintiffs and in doing so, they also caused damages to the roots of the mango trees standing on the said agricultural land of the plaintiffs. In my considered opinion, in view of the documentary and the oral evidence available on the record, the Trial Court has committed an error in recording findings on Issue No. 3 and 5 against the plaintiffs and dismissing the plaintiffs' suit. On re-appreciation of the evidence available on the record, I reverse the findings on issue Nos. 3 and 5 and decide both the issues in affirmation and in favour of the appellant-plaintiffs. On re-appreciation of the evidence available on the record, I reverse the findings on issue Nos. 3 and 5 and decide both the issues in affirmation and in favour of the appellant-plaintiffs. ( 8 ) THE other question arises for decision in this appeal that if any damage is caused to the agricultural land of the plaintiff by digging pits and tunnels in the said lands and taking soil from the lands in dispute for the construction of the alleged road as also causing some damage to the roots of the mango trees, then, what should be the quantum of damages that can be awarded to the plaintiffs? ( 9 ) ON considering the evidence available on the record, with regard to the quantum of damages, it emerged that the plaintiff has exaggerated the loss caused to the agricultural lands as well as the quantum of the damages. Taking into consideration the facts stated in the Commissioner's report (Ex. P 14) as also from the admission of the defendants made in amended para No. 5 of the written statement and also considering the other evidence on this point, I am of the opinion that the agricultural lands in dispute can be brought to its original shape by filling the soil and for this purpose, rs. 5,000/- compensation would be proper and appropriate compensation that can be awarded in favour of the plaintiff. So far as the award of compensation for the damage caused to the mango trees, the plaintiffs have proved only that in the construction of the alleged road, some of the roots of the said trees have been cut. The plaintiffs have failed to prove that as a result of the cutting of some roots what loss is caused to the mango trees and the yield of the fruits. In absence of the evidence on the aforesaid point, in my considered opinion, the appellant-plaintiffs are not entitled to get any compensation for the alleged damage caused to the mango trees as a result of the cutting of some of the roots. ( 10 ) AS a result of the foregoing discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiffs partly succeeds and is accordingly allowed in part. The impugned judgment and the decree of the Trial Court is set-aside and the decree of only Rs. ( 10 ) AS a result of the foregoing discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiffs partly succeeds and is accordingly allowed in part. The impugned judgment and the decree of the Trial Court is set-aside and the decree of only Rs. 5,000/- with proportionate cost of both the Courts is passed in favour of the appellants and against respondents Nos. 1 to 3. The respondents shall bear the cost of this appeal as also the suit and shall pay the cost to the appellants to the extent of claim decreed of both the Courts. Counsel fee as per schedule, is allowed on certificate. A decree be drawn up accordingly. Appeal partly allowed. .