Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1493 (PNJ)

Union of India v. Krishan Singh

2003-10-29

VINEY MITTAL

body2003
JUDGMENT Viney Mittal, J. - This order shall dispose of three Regular First Appeals being RFA No. 1613 of 1989, RFA No. 1622 of 1989 and RFA No. 1624 of 1989 as all the three appeals have arisen out of the same acquisition. 2. Vide notification dated December 2, 1977, the Government of India, Ministry of defence acquired an area of 2817 kanals for a public purpose at public expenses. At the time of acquisition, there were some orchards i.e. fruit bearing trees of different land owners. Accordingly, the aforesaid fruit bearing trees also formed a part of acquisition. An independent supplementary award dated September 15, 1986 was pronounced by the Special Land Acquisition Collector, Amritsar with regard to the fruit bearing trees. The claimant felt dis-satisfied with the award of the learned Land Acquisition Collector and as such claimed reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, the Act). The matter was duly referred. 3. During the Course of proceedings under reference before the learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, parties led their evidence. The land owner-claimants examined Sunder Singh AW1 besides examining themselves. 4. On the other hand the Union of India examined B.L. Chhabra RW1. The aforesaid witness appeared as an expert witness and deposed about the valuation of the trees. For such evaluation, he relied upon a formula prepared by Harbans Singh, formerly Director of Horticulture Himachal Pradesh which had been duly adopted by the State Government of Punjab. 5. The learned Additional District Judge, on the basis of evaluation report submitted by Shri B.L. Chhabra, RW1 held as follows : "For all practical purposes there is no real conflict between the evidence of AW1 and RW1. The list of standing trees was prepared by B.L. Chhabra (RW1) on the spot. Sunder Singh AW1 did not visit the spot and prepared the valuation report Ex.A.1 on the basis of the list prepared by RW1. The slight point of divergence is regarding the grading of the trees A and B corresponding to Class I and II in formula Ex.R.1. The assessment is made by AW1 as well as RW1 on the formula styled as "Evaluation" of fruit trees : Basic Principles and Methods" published by Sh. Harbans Singh, Formerly Director of Horticulture Himachal Pradesh and thereafter working as Chief Agricultural Expert and Agricultural Production Commissioner in the Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India. The assessment is made by AW1 as well as RW1 on the formula styled as "Evaluation" of fruit trees : Basic Principles and Methods" published by Sh. Harbans Singh, Formerly Director of Horticulture Himachal Pradesh and thereafter working as Chief Agricultural Expert and Agricultural Production Commissioner in the Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India. He is undisputedly an expert in the line. As per the said publication, he has prepared scientific basis and method, commonly described as formula for determining the value of the orchards or fruit bearing trees. Regarding the category of trees the statement of B.L. Chhabra (RW1) has to prevail over the deposition of Sunder Singh (AW1) for the simple reason that RW1 prepared the list on the spot whereas the statement of AW1 is only conjectural as he did not visit the spot at all. B.L. Chhabra (RW1) stated that he prepared the valuation on the basis of the formula of Sh. Harbans SIngh Ex.R.1. The formula is applicable only to the year in which it was published i.e. 1966. In other words, the said formula was based on the market conditions prevalent in 1966. This would mean that the compensation awarded to the applicant for the fruit bearing trees is the market value of 1966. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the year 1977. As noted above, the attempt has to be determined the market value of the trees in the year 1977. The formula Ex.R1 was not revised subsequent to the year 1966. There is an unfailing source of guidance in the decision of the Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in case Ranjit Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, AIR 1983 Punjab and Haryana 308. In that case, the formula of Sh. Harbans Singh Ex.R.1 was accepted and it was held that the said formula can be relied upon for determining the market value of the fruit bearing trees. In order to make the formula relevant for the subsequent years, the Honble High Court laid down a guideline that the formula may be linked up with the whole sale price index of the relevant year as contained in the Bulletin published by the Economic Adviser Ministry of Industry Govt. of India. It cannot be disputed that the whole sale price index constantly changes and as such it ias a variable factor. of India. It cannot be disputed that the whole sale price index constantly changes and as such it ias a variable factor. The formula Ex.R1 has to be co- related with the index of whole sale price as published by the Govt. of India in the aforesaid Bulletin. The value of 1966 worked out according to the formula Ex.R.1 if enhanced in the same ratio in which the number of whole sale price index for the year of notification shall bear to the similar number for the year of the formula would lead to the reasonable and fair market price during the year of notification. In this situation, the ratio of increase in the whole sale price index prevalent in the year 1966 and the year 1977 may be worked out. In was referred to the monthly Bulletin for January, 1980 published by the Economic Adviser, Minister of Industry Govt. of India New Delhi. As per the table given at page 5 of the said Bulletin in the year 1966 the whole sale price index stood at 144.3 (base 1961-62) and it inflated to 335.8 in the year 1977. This would mean that from 1966 to 1977 to whole sale price index number registered an increase by 191.5. Calculating it in terms of percentage the increase as 133%. Applying that yardstick and keeping in mind that the market value of any property cannot be assessed with exactitude, it can be said fairly that the market value of the acquired trees increased by 133% from 1996 to 1977. It was also brought to my notice that an award on the same principle in respect of fruit bearing trees of a nearly village Jandwal acquired for the same purpose (scheme) has become final. The applicant was awarded compensation at the market price prevalent in 1966 and that is grossly unfair and unjust. It is accordingly held that the applicant is entitled to increase of 133% over the value assessed by the Special Land Acquisition Collector. This issue is decided accordingly." Accordingly, an increase of 133% over and above the valuation assessed by the Special Land Acquisition Collector was awarded to the claimant-land owners. Additionally, the claimants were also held entitled to the statutory benefits including the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act, as amended. 6. This issue is decided accordingly." Accordingly, an increase of 133% over and above the valuation assessed by the Special Land Acquisition Collector was awarded to the claimant-land owners. Additionally, the claimants were also held entitled to the statutory benefits including the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act, as amended. 6. The present appeals have now been filed by the Union of India and others challenging the award of the learned Additional District Judge. 7. I have heard Shri P.C. Goyal, the learned Additionally Central Govt. Standing Counsel for the appellants. 8. In my considered opinion, there is no scope for interference in the present appeals. 9. The award of the learned Additional District Judge is primarily based upon the evaluation report submitted by Shri B.L. Chhabra, RW1 which was based upon the formula Ex.R1. Further, it has been noticed by the learned Additional District Judge that the said formula was based on market conditions prevalent in the year 1966 whereas the notification was published in the year 1977. Since the formula Ex.R1 had not been revised subsequent to the year 1966, therefore, an increase had to be given for the period from 1966 to 1977. On the basis of law laid down by this Court in Ranjit Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, AIR 1983 Punjab and Haryana 308, the learned Additional District Judge has rightly taken into consideration the increase in the whole sale price index from the period 1966 to 1977. On that basis, it has been found that there was 133% increase in the market index. Accordingly, the aforesaid 133% increase has been applied for determining the market value of the acquired trees and accordingly the valuation of the trees has been brought upto date to the year 1977. 10. Shri P.C. Goyal, the learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to point out any error in the said formula, nor any finality in the calculation so adopted by the learned Additional District Judge. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present appeals and the same are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeals dismissed.