Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1119 (PNJ)

Pohu Ram v. Land Acquisition Collector

2000-09-15

R.L.ANAND

body2000
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. (Oral) - This is a Regular First Appeal and has been directed against the judgment dated 5.6.1992 passed by the Additional District Judge, Roper who awarded a sum of Rs. 7,062/- by way of compensation for the tube- well of the appellant. Not satisfied with the said judgment, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Pohu Ram appellant filed a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the acquisition of his tube-well and 23 trees and claimed adequate compensation. The case of the appellant before the trial Court was that his tube-well and trees were acquired for the construction of S.Y.L. Canal and supplementary award No. 202/R-SYL dated 29.9.1986 was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector. Adequate compensation was not given to him for the tube-well and the trees. According to the appellant, his tube-well was of the value of Rs. 30,000/- and his trees were of the value as given below :- 8 Guava trees Rs. 16,000/- 2 Mango trees Rs. 6,000/- 1 Mulberry Rs. 1,000/- 1 Beri Rs. 1,000/- 1 Cambery Rs. 1,000/- 2 Kikar Rs. 2,000/- 3 Gullar Rs. 800/- 5 Safeda Rs. 2,000/- 2 Dek Rs. 600/- He also claimed other statutory benefits on the market value of the tube-well and trees. 3. Notice of the reference was given to the opposite parties. They admitted that the tube-well, 6 guava trees, 1 mango tree, one Beri tree, two Kikar trees, 2 Dek trees and 5 Safeda trees were acquired in village Mianpur Handur belonging to the appellant for the construction of S.Y.L. Canal and adequate compensation has been given to the appellant and now he is not entitled to claim any enhanced compensation. 4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court :- 1. Whether the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector is insufficient ? If so, to what extent ? OPP 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to enhancement of compensation ? If so, to what amount ? OPP 3. Relief. 5. The parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective cases and on the conclusion of trial vide para No. 6 of the impugned judgment it was observed that the market value of the tube-well is Rs. 7,062/- and not Rs. If so, to what amount ? OPP 3. Relief. 5. The parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective cases and on the conclusion of trial vide para No. 6 of the impugned judgment it was observed that the market value of the tube-well is Rs. 7,062/- and not Rs. 30,000/- as claimed by the appellant. It will be appropriate for me to incorporate para No. 6 of the impugned judgment, which reads as under : "6. First of all it is to be determined as to what was the market value of the tube-well of the claimant at the time of its acquisition. PW2 Jai Singh is retired S.D.O. of the Irrigation department. He went to the site on 2.5.1986 and prepared the site plan P3 and the estimate of the tube-well is P4. According to him the market value of the tube-well was Rs. 14,526/-. No reliance can be placed on his testimony. He exaggerated the price. He is a remunerated witness. He admitted in cross-examination that he did not obtain the quotations from the market and applied his own rates as known to him. He applied only 10% depreciation of the whole costs. He admitted that he did not apply any depreciation according to the years for which the tube-well was in operation, nor did he confirm the same from the applicant. He admittedly prepared the rough notes but destroyed them. His estimate P4 is dated 2.3.1990 while he went to the site on 2.5.1986. The respondent examined RW1 Manmohan Lal Sharma S.D.O. Irrigation. The estimate recorded is Ex. R1. He assessed the value of the tube-well as Rs. 7062/-. In fact he worked out the value of the tube-well as 6141/- and added Rs. 921/- as 15% compulsory acquisition. The total value of the tube-well as per his report can be taken as Rs. 7062/-, without compulsory acquisition charges, which would be just, fair and adequate compensation. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded Rs. 6141/- to the applicants as market value of the tube-well. The claimant was in this way given less compensation to the tune of Rs. 921/-. The applicant is entitled to be awarded Rs. 921/- more as compensation for tube-well." 6. I have heard Mr. G.S. Mann, Advocate on behalf of the appellant, Ms. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded Rs. 6141/- to the applicants as market value of the tube-well. The claimant was in this way given less compensation to the tune of Rs. 921/-. The applicant is entitled to be awarded Rs. 921/- more as compensation for tube-well." 6. I have heard Mr. G.S. Mann, Advocate on behalf of the appellant, Ms. Gurveen H. Singh, AAG, Punjab, on behalf of the respondents and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case. 7. I may make a mention here that this appeal I am disposing of at the request made by the learned counsel for the appellant, who made an application for early hearing of the appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is proved on the record vide Exs. P3 and P4 that the market value of the tube-well was Rs. 14,526/- on the date of the acquisition. He has also drawn my attention to the statement of PW2 Jai Singh, a retired S.D.O. of the Irrigation Department, who had prepared the estimate of the tube-well as Rs. 14,526/-. But I do not subscribe to the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant because it has been admitted by this witness in his cross-examination that he did not obtain any quotation from the market, rather he applied his own rates while assessing the market value of the tubewell on the date of the acquisition. His mode of depreciation is also not in accordance with law. This witness inspected the spot on 2.5.1986, but his estimate was prepared after a period of 4 years. He has not kept any rough notes as to how he made calculation of Rs. 14,526/-. The onus of issue No. 1 was upon the appellant and he failed to discharge the same. 8. Resultantly, I do not find any illegality in the findings of learned Additional District Judge, who awarded a sum of Rs. 7,062/- after relying upon the statement of RW1 Manmohan Lal Sharma, SDO, Irrigation Department, who prepared the estimate Ex. R1. The learned trial Court also added a sum of Rs. 921/- in the estimate of Manmohan Lal Sharma and calculated the compensation of the tube-well at Rs. 7,062/-. Thus I do no see any illegality in the judgment of the trial Court. The appeal is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.