Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 336 (PNJ)

Union Of India v. Aravali Krishi Anuvanashak Ltd.

2003-02-24

SWATANTER KUMAR

body2003
Judgment Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. Both the above mentioned regular first appeals arise from one and the same award dated 9.5.1992 passed by the learned District Judge, Gurgaon. RFA No. 2147 of 1992 has been preferred by the claimant for enhancement of the awarded compensation on account of land, buildings, trees etc. while RFA No. 2104 of 1992 has been preferred by the Union of India praying that the compensation awarded is exorbitantly unreasonable and prays for restoration of the award of the Collector. In view of these circumstances I would dispose of both the above appeals by a common judgment. 2. On 27.10.1988 State of Haryana issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), acquiring 1275 kanals 4 martas. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 3.7.1989. Possession of the land was taken in accordance with law. The Collector after providing opportunity to the parties of leading evidence and hearing, notified his award on 14.11.1990 awarding compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs. One lac per acre for Chahi land, for Bhood land Rs. 80,000/- per acre, for Banjar Land Rs. 70,000/- and for Gair Mumkin land Rs. 60,000/-. In the award it was specifically noticed that compensation in regard to super-structure plants and trees was not assessed for want of reports from the concerned quarters. The claimants Aravali Krishi Amtvanshak Limited, a company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act claimed that it owned 66 Kanals 17 Marias of land out of the acquired land. According to them, the land was developed, beautified and they had established a factory wind-mill, tubewell, cropping sheds, flower glasses and they had incurred heavy expenditure on developing the land. It was further stated that the land in question was situated at Gurgaon-Alwar Highway within the jurisdiction of Tehsil Gurgaon, near the foot of Aravali range. The entire project was laid by the company after receiving no objection certificate from the concerned quarters. They produced on record various large documentary and oral evidence on record in support of their case and claim and prayed before the District Judge, Gurgaon to enhance the compensation given to them at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per square yard. In addition to the award of compensation, they claimed Rs. 60 lacs on account of super-structures and Rs. They produced on record various large documentary and oral evidence on record in support of their case and claim and prayed before the District Judge, Gurgaon to enhance the compensation given to them at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per square yard. In addition to the award of compensation, they claimed Rs. 60 lacs on account of super-structures and Rs. 50 lacs for garden and orchards. The application of the claimants under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was forwarded to the District Judge and the learned District Judge dealt with the case expeditiously and while awarding compensation on account of cost of acquired land granted Rs. 450/- per square yard i.e. Rs. 21,78,0007- per acre, for super-structures etc. Rs. 46,54,4507-, for horticulture items Rs. 35,00,0007- and further awarded by way of damages for the unacquired portion of land at the rate of Rs. 2257-per square yard under the provisions of the Act and also granted solatium, interest and other charges at the increased statutory rates under the Act. It will be appropriate to note the reasoning given, by reference to the relevant parts of the judgment recorded by the learned Judge for awarding the said compensation:- "Coming now to the assessment of the market value of the acquired land reliance was placed by the petitioner on copies of the agreements to sell Exs.PS to P13 executed by the company in favour of PW3 & 5 to 12, vide which the vendees had agreed to purchase the plots out of the acquired land @ Rs. 600/- per sq. yd. four days before the date of acquisition. These instances being out of the acquired land and just four days before acquisition are the best guide for determination of the market value of the acquired land. However, the acquired land being a large block, appropriate deduction has to be made for roads, open spaces and plotting out smaller plots suitable for construction of buildings and in such cases the Honble Supreme Court upheld the cut of 25% imposed by the High Court (Chiman Lal Hargovind Das v. Spl. Land acquisition Officer Poona and another,1 1988 L.L.C.C. 491) and imposing cut of 25% on the market value given in the agreements the market value of the acquired land will come to Rs. 4507- per sq. Land acquisition Officer Poona and another,1 1988 L.L.C.C. 491) and imposing cut of 25% on the market value given in the agreements the market value of the acquired land will come to Rs. 4507- per sq. yrd." "On this issue we have statement of Shri Y.D. Adlakha (PW1) who proved his report and estimate Ex.Pl vide which he assessed the value of the super structure at Rs. 46,54,4507-. Large number of photographs and statement of R.P. Mittal (PW-15) also corroborate the contention of the petitioner. There is no rebuttal. The respondents tendered two estimates one given in the State PWD which mentions this figure at Rs. 22,81,7007- whereas that of the CPWD at Rs. 10,21,124/-. The Land Acquisition Collector while awarding compensation under this head took average of the same which does not appeal to reason. No Engineer has come into the witness box to enable the petitioner to cross-examine him on the subject. Thus the evidence adduced by the respondents has no value. Thus relying the evidence adduced by the petitioner, it is awarded Rs. 46,54,450/- (Forty six lacs, fifty four thousand, four hundred and fifty) under this issue under the head of super-structure, as it is a matter of common knowledge that prices of construction are rising day by day. This amount of Rs. 46,54,450/- will, however, include amount of compensation assessed for electric fittings, i.e. Rs. 53,2387- and that of other items as given in the supplementary award. As regards trees, orchard and other horticultural items, Dr. P.S. Lamba, Hony Director, Maharaj Suraj Mal Institute, New Delhi who worked for 40 years with various Universities and an Ex.Vice Chancellor Agriculture University appeared as PW 2 and he assessed valuation of horticultural items at Rs. 52,58,676.00. Sh. Dharamatma Singh who accompanied the Local Commissioner valued them at Rs. 50,52,450/- The respondents have not produced any oral evidence but have tendered award Ex.R-13, giving the figure less than Rs. 2 lacs under this head. No expert has been brought in the witness box to test the veracity of his estimate by cross-examining him, whereas the Expert of the petitioner has stood the test of cross-examination. It may be that at the time of inspection by the departmental experts some ornamental items might have been vanished and some others might have been removed away and still others might have perished due to non-attendance or due to weather. It may be that at the time of inspection by the departmental experts some ornamental items might have been vanished and some others might have been removed away and still others might have perished due to non-attendance or due to weather. No date of the visit of the Forest Officer is mentioned in the supplementary award." 3. As already noticed, according to learned counsel for the claimant-appellants, the compensation ought to have been awarded as per prayer amount as they had led sufficient evidence to substantiate their claim. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing for Union of India contended that he awarded compensation is not based upon any proper evidence and in fact the entire proceedings before the learned trial Court have been conducted in an undue haste and contrary to known procedure of law. The Union of India has suffered a serious prejudice and prayed for setting aside of the judgment and consequently restoration of the award given by the Controller. 4. In order to examine merits of these contentions the first and the fore-most thing which the Court has to deal with in some elucidation is the evidence on record. The claimants examined 16 witnesses to prove and justify their claim for enhancement. In the statements of these witnesses they led enormous documentary evidence. Agreements to sell Ex.P.5 to P.13, photographs of the land in question, buildings, horticulture, trees and other development on the said land allegedly carried out by the claimants were sought to be depicted by photographs Ex.P.15 to P.110 and their negatives were exhibited on record as Ex.P.111 to P.206 besides sale-deeds Ex.P.227, P.228 and P.238. All the sale deeds related to village Bhondsi, Tehsil Sohna. The awards/judgments of the Courts of Additional District Judge and District Judge were produced and exhibited on record as Ex.P.229, P.230 and P.239 of village Islampur, Jharsa and Chakarpur Chakar-pur respectively in regard to notification dated 12.10.1983, 10.1.1983 and 10.12.1984. In addition to this and to show the high price of the acquired land, the claimant also produced on record plot agreement executed by M/s Ansals in favour of the allottee Ex.P.237. The reports with regard to the trees, horticulture, constructions, buildings etc. were produced and proved by PW1 and PW2 as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4 in addition to assessment reports P.211 and P.212. This also included the site plan placed by the claimants on record. The reports with regard to the trees, horticulture, constructions, buildings etc. were produced and proved by PW1 and PW2 as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4 in addition to assessment reports P.211 and P.212. This also included the site plan placed by the claimants on record. Certain other miscellaneous evidence was proved on record which is not very material for the purposes of determining the controversy in issue. They also referred to Ex.P. 14, letter of the competent authority that the acquired land did not fall in controlled area. 5. On the other hand, the respondents examined one witness and produced on record Ex.Rl to Ex.R.10 sale-deed. Ex.R.lI site plan, Ex.R.12 khasra Girdawari, Assessment of costs of building and estimate of assessment of the Company Ex.R.14 and R.15. They also produced Ex,R.13 supplementary award in the present case. 6. The first and the fore-most attack by the learned counsel appearing for union of India is that agreements Ex.P.5 to P. 13 could not be taken into consideration and made the basis for awarding such exorbitant compensation. It is pointed out that agreement to sell does not create a title in the property and is per se in admissible in evidence. The agreements are stated to be executed between Aravali Krishi Anuvanshak-claimants and the representatives/share holders of the company. The agreements were executed just four days before the notification and as such the value indicated therein cannot be taken into consideration. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the company M/s Aravali Krishin Anuvanshak Ltd. contends that agreements to sell can be looked into and made the basis for awarding compensation. They are genuine agreements and the court cannot go behind the agreement. So far the value reflected in the agreement is apparent and has passed to the seller. The parties to the agreement were examined. 7. The-learned counsel appearing for the Company mainly placed reliance upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Metropolitan Development Auth. & State of W.B. through its First Land Acquisition Collector v. Dominion Land & Industries Ltd. and Sri Kalia Chakraborty,2 1995(3) Recent Revenue Reports 60 to contend that bonafide agreement to sell can be made the basis for determining the compensation. Even as per this contention the agreements must satisfy other ingredients enunciated in law and then must also be genuine and bonafide. Even as per this contention the agreements must satisfy other ingredients enunciated in law and then must also be genuine and bonafide. All the agreements produced by the Company have been executed by the claimant-Company in favour of the persons Sh. S.N. Virmani, Sh. Rakesh Raman, Sh. T.C. Maden and others. All these agreements are of one and the same date i.e., 23.10.1988 only. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 27.10.1988. The agreements were executed just three days prior to the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. The genuineness of the agreement and bonafides on the part of the parties entering into-said agreement in these circumstances is highly doubtful. Publication of notification under section 4 of the Act is a culmination of a process relating to acquiring of the land. In the concerned Government Departments, proposals are made much in advance. It is matter of common knowledge that persons of the village and particularly interested parties are fully aware that notification for acquisition is likely to be issued shortly. The agreements which are intended to show an unreasonable increase in the value of the land and are executed just few days before the notification under Section of the Act, particularly when bonafides of the parties are questioned, the agreements cannot be treated as a reliable piece of evidence for enhancement of compensation. All the agreements appear to have been typed on the same type-writer. From the record it appears that the stamp papers of all the agreements were produced on 19.10.1988. Identical advances of Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 25,0007- are given for plots of 500 square yards are agreed to be transferred except Ex.P.7 where land measures about 700 square yards. Only an advance of Rs. 5000/- by bank draft is paid. Som Nath Virmani while appearing as PW3 himself conceded that these agreements to sell could not be culminated into execution of sale-deeds as notification under Section 4 of the Act had already been issued. The Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of V.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Jainul Islam and Anr. 5000/- by bank draft is paid. Som Nath Virmani while appearing as PW3 himself conceded that these agreements to sell could not be culminated into execution of sale-deeds as notification under Section 4 of the Act had already been issued. The Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of V.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Jainul Islam and Anr. A.I.R. 1998 Supreme Court 1828 clearly held that agreements which have not matured into sale-deeds can be of no assistance to a claimant and further more the agreements which are executed shortly before issuance of notification under Section 4 and particularly when such agreements lack genuiness, cannot be made the basis for determining the amount of compensation or its enhancement in the subsequent proceedings. Similar view was also taken by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Subash Chand and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr. 1998(1) P.L.J. 80. 8. In view of the settled position of law afore-noticed I am of the considered view that no reliance could have been placed by the learned reference court upon these agreements and at the face of it such agreements would be inadmissible for determining the quantum of compensation payable to the claimants. This point is consequently answered in favour of Union of India. 9. Another material piece of evidence which has been referred by learned trial Court and heavily relied upon by learned counsel for the Appellant is agreement Ex.P.237 which is Plot Buyers Agreement executed by M/s Ansal in favour of one Ashwani Ku-mar (HUF). In terms of this agreement a developed plot with certain obligations has been agreed to be sold at the rate of Rs.10767- per square meter in Sushant Lok Colony. There is no evidence on record again to show whether in furtherance to this agreement the plot was actually transferred and a sale deed for the plot in question was executed in favour of the purchaser or not. This is a document which had only been tendered in evidence by the counsel for the petitioner as recorded in the order of the Court dated 2.4.1992. The document was tendered in evidence in addition to other documents. Neither the purchaser nor the seller was examined. This is a document which had only been tendered in evidence by the counsel for the petitioner as recorded in the order of the Court dated 2.4.1992. The document was tendered in evidence in addition to other documents. Neither the purchaser nor the seller was examined. Of course, their non-examination in view of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer v. Narsain, J.T. 2001(3) S.C. 157, would not be per se inadmissible but to prove the bonafides of this agreement and actual completion of the transaction, it was obligatory on the part of the claimants to at least examine either of them. Mere exhibition of a document would not be itself extinguish admissibility in evidence of a document. This agreement is only an agreement to sell where possession had been given. Thus, it ought to have been registered in accordance with iaw. If it is assumed that Ex.P.237 creates any interest in the property, then its registration would be mandatory as per judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major and Ors. (1996-1)112 P.L.R. 559 (S.C.). without registration, the document would be inadmissible in any subsequent proceedings. Further more, this document relates to a plot in a fully developed colony where various facilities of security and all other necessities and luxuries of life are stated to have been provided. This document besides being inadmissible cannot be treated at all as a safe-guard for determination of fair market value of the land at the relevant time. The dates reflected in the agreement and its schedule related to the period from 1989 to 1991 i.e., nearly more than one year after the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. Thus the claimants cannot derive much support from this document to substantiate their prayer for enhancement of the awarded compensation. 10. AWARDS The next evidence produced by the claimant in support of their case are the sale-deeds Ex.P.227, P.228 and P.238, the details of which are as under;- Ex. Date of Area sold Sale consideration Rate per acre Sale P-227 27.5.1991 1K-5M Rs. 1,40,000/- Rs. 8,29,6307- P-228 27.2.1989 8K-OM Rs. 3,80,000/- Rs. 3,80,0007- P-238 08.8.1990 2K-OM Rs. 1,98,000/- Rs. 7,92,0007- 11. AWARDS The next evidence produced by the claimant in support of their case are the sale-deeds Ex.P.227, P.228 and P.238, the details of which are as under;- Ex. Date of Area sold Sale consideration Rate per acre Sale P-227 27.5.1991 1K-5M Rs. 1,40,000/- Rs. 8,29,6307- P-228 27.2.1989 8K-OM Rs. 3,80,000/- Rs. 3,80,0007- P-238 08.8.1990 2K-OM Rs. 1,98,000/- Rs. 7,92,0007- 11. AH the above sale-deeds relate to village Bhondsi and are much subsequent to the date of notification under Section 4 of village Bhondsi with which the Court is concerned. As already noticed, notification under Section 4 in this case was issued on 27.10.1988. After notification under Section 4 is issued, it is a matter of common knowledge that the prices of the land to go up. It is publicaly known fact that development activity by the State is to be carried out in those areas. The land in question was acquired for establishment of Training Centre for Recruits for B.S.F., Government of India, as stated in the notification. The sale-deeds Ex.P.227 and P.238 are much subsequent i.e. even more than two years subsequent to the date of notification and as such cannot be taken note of for any purpose, whatsoever, in relation to the matter in controversy, Ex.P.228 is the sale-deed which is nearly six months subsequent to the issuance of the notification under Section 4. This sale deed only show the increase or decrease in the price of the land to determine price trend of the land in the locality in questions. For the sake of arguments even if it is assumed that Ex.P.228 can be relied upon while determining fair market value of the land in question, even then by no stretch of imagination awarding value at the rate of Rs. 21,78,0007- per acre cannot be justified. Prima-fa-cie Ex.P.228 for the afore-noticed reason is an exhibit which normally would fall outside the zone of consideration. The value indicated in this exhibit would be liable to be further reduced considerably on account of location, area, the point of time to which the sale deed relates to. 12. Awards Ex.P.229, P.230 and P.239 have been tendered in evidence by the claimants. All the awards relate to the period 1983 and 1984, nearly 4 to 5 years prior to the date of issuance of the relevant notification. 12. Awards Ex.P.229, P.230 and P.239 have been tendered in evidence by the claimants. All the awards relate to the period 1983 and 1984, nearly 4 to 5 years prior to the date of issuance of the relevant notification. As already noticed, these awards relate to land situated in villages Islampur, Jhasra and Chakkarpur. The land in all these three villages was acquired for development of residential and commercial areas in the city of Gurgaon. They are situated on the National Highway (Delhi-Jaipur Road), while the lands subject matter of the present appeals are located on State Highway (Gurgaon-So-hna Road). The acquired land is at a distance of 12 kilometres from Gurgaon. Consequently, these awards can also not be indicative of fair market value of the acquired land at the relevant time. 13. Coming to the evidence of the respondents, Ex.R.1 to R.10 are the sale-deeds. These sale-deeds relate to village Bhondsi for the period 16.10.1987 to 12.11.1987. According to these exhibits the value of the land comes to Rs. 36820.70 per acre. However, all these sale transactions have been correctly rejected by the learned reference Court inasmuch as the collector has assessed the market value of the land in question at the rate of Rs. one lac per acre. Normally, the market value of the land awarded by the collector is not to be reduced by the Courts. As such all these exhibits are immaterial for deciding the fate of the appeal. Ex.R.14 and Ex.R.15 are the assessments of costs of building and estimate of assessment of horticulture etc. In relation to the assets of the company, which according to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents were not even discussed and appropriately referred in evidence by the learned reference Court. 14. Ex.R.14 and Ex.R.15 are the assessments of costs of building and estimate of assessment of horticulture etc. In relation to the assets of the company, which according to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents were not even discussed and appropriately referred in evidence by the learned reference Court. 14. At this state, 1 would proceed to notice the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for Union of India and the State, who strenuously referred what was termed by them as irregularities or unusual procedure adopted by the reference Court while deciding the matter, The contentions are;- a) There were number of references arising out of the same award which have been referred by the Collector to the Court under Section 18 of the Act and there was no justification for segregating and deciding this petition separately from other petitions; b) At the time when evidence was recorded, it was on record of the Court that supplementary award in relation to construction of buildings, horticulture and other incidental matters had not been received. The respondents placed Ex.R. 13 supplementary award on record of the Court on 20.4.1992. The learned reference Court without affording appropriate opportunity to the respondent-State or the Union of India proceeded to decide the matter and awarded exorbitant compensation on all counts; c) The Local Commissioner had been appointed by the Court to collect evidence on behalf of the claimants and such a procedure is not known or atleast taken recourse to by the Court in land acquisition references. d) Unequivocal and undisturbed acceptance of the experts evidence produced and proved by the claimants without even reference to Ex.P.14 and P.15 has seriously caused prejudice to the interests of Union of India and the State. e) Despite some irresponsibility on the part of the Counsel, the Court should have taken care to consider only admissible and proper evidence and should not have awarded such exorbitant amounts nearly 23 times of the awarded amount by the Collector for value of land and separately for super-structures, trees, horticulture etc., which is prejudicial to the public exchequer and is contrary to the evidence on record. 15. At the out set I may notice that the Union of India and the State of Haryana have certainly not conducted their case properly and with due diligence before the learned reference court. 15. At the out set I may notice that the Union of India and the State of Haryana have certainly not conducted their case properly and with due diligence before the learned reference court. The prayer for leading evidence after receipt of the supplementary award and expert reports etc, ought to have been made by the respondents. It appears that the short dates were given but then it cannot be said that the case had not been properly dealt with by the Court. 16. Out of the above noted submissions some have substance. Section 18 of the Act contemplates only one award and the concept of supplementary award is not known to law of acquisition as such. The Honble Apex Court in the case of Mohanji and another v. State of V.P. and Ors., J.T. 1995(8) S.C. 599 observed that a piecemeal award by making a subsequent award after the expiry of period of two years is not contemplated in law. It is really not necessary for me to go into the validity or otherwise of incorporation of Sections 11, 11-A and 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, I am primarily concerned with the fact whether any prejudice has been caused to the State of Haryana and Union of India as a result of taking the supplementary award Ex.R.13 on record and immediately closing the evidence. 17. The main award in this case was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on 14.11.1990. Union of India was impleaded as a party vide order dated 28.11.1991. The supplementary award was published on 20.4.1992 and on the same day it was produced before the Court as Ex.R.13. It was noticed by the Court on the same day that evidence has been concluded and the case was fixed for arguments on 25.4.1992. Present award was pronounced on 9.5.1992. It appears from these dates that the counsel appearing for Union of India did not take precaution in making a request before the Court to prove the reports and to lead other evidence to meet and explain the case of Union of India or the State in relation to supplementary award Ex.R.13. The evidence of the claimants was closed on 2.4.1992 while the evidence of respondents was closed on 20.4.1992. Within days of presentation of the supplementary award, the respondents did not lead any evidence and the judgment was pronounced. The evidence of the claimants was closed on 2.4.1992 while the evidence of respondents was closed on 20.4.1992. Within days of presentation of the supplementary award, the respondents did not lead any evidence and the judgment was pronounced. The contention of the counsel for Union of India that even if there was some irresponsibility on the part of the counsel appearing for Union of India and the State, it should not be permitted to cause prejudice to the public interest. Public interest must take precedence over the error of the pleader. 18. I find substance in this submission. The reference was received in the court on 31.8.1991 by Dak. Then application was moved for appointment of local commissioner, which was allowed vide order dated 16.9.1991. The local commissioner was appointed to visit the spot and assess the value of the trees on the acquired land. This was done just at the initial stage and the Court had also given liberty to the claimants to produce experts in evidence. The tenor of the order as well as the report of local commissioner show that he had collected evidence for the claimants, which is not permissible within the purview and scope of order 26 Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code. Particularly in regard to land acquisition matters. In the facts and circumstances of the case, probably it would have been more appropriate for the learned reference court to await the supplementary award right at the initial stages and grant opportunity to the parties to lead evidence collectively on both the awards, once they were received in Court. The compensation awarded by the learned reference court is unreasonably exorbitant and is not based on any proper cogent, reliable and legally admissible evidence. In fact the present case would ultimately become a case of no evidence and ignoring all material evidence on record. To the extent of sale-deeds produced by both the parties, they are inadmissible or irrelevant. The awards relate to other villages and in any case not of the lands which are adjacent to land of present acquisition. Agreement to sell and letters of allotment produced by the appellants are again not a direct evidence which could indicate a fair market value of the land at the time of notification or immediately prior or subsequent thereto. The awards relate to other villages and in any case not of the lands which are adjacent to land of present acquisition. Agreement to sell and letters of allotment produced by the appellants are again not a direct evidence which could indicate a fair market value of the land at the time of notification or immediately prior or subsequent thereto. Where on the one hand, the evidence relied upon by the learned counsel in passing the award is inadmissible or irrelevant, there on the other hand, the Court has not adverted itself to any discussion on the validity of Ex.R.14 and Ex.R.I5 and it is a fact on the expert report produced by the claimants particularly in view of supplementary award Ex.R. 15. 19. The learned counsel for the respondents heavily relied upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v, Gurcharan Singh and anOrs. etc., 8 (1995-2)110 P.L.R. 694 (S.C.) to contend that the court could not have awarded separate compensation in the present case. He relies upon the following observations of the Honble Apex Court:- "Ms. Surichi Agarwal, learned counsel for the State contended that the High Court has committed grave error of law in upholding the determination of compensation both to the land as well as fruit bearing trees and has also further committed error in enhancing the market value to the confirmation or the compensation separately awarded for the land and the fruit bearing trees. It is against the settled principle of law as laid down by this Court in catena of decisions. We find force in the contention. Sh. Bagga, learned counsel for the respondents contended that in the year 1966 the price index was at 144 points whereas in 1970 the index was found to be at 213 points. The High Court, therefore, was right in increasing the compensation to the fruit bearing trees by 60%. We find force in the contention. It is settled law that the Collector or the Court who determines the compensation for the land as well as fruit bearing trees cannot determine them separately. The compensation is to the value of the acquired land. The market value is determined on the basis of the yield." 20. We find force in the contention. It is settled law that the Collector or the Court who determines the compensation for the land as well as fruit bearing trees cannot determine them separately. The compensation is to the value of the acquired land. The market value is determined on the basis of the yield." 20. In view of the above settled principle, it was obligatory upon the court not to award different compensation and even if it is so decided it ought to have considered the entire matter in the light of the above enunciated law. While awarding compensation of the land on which the trees are standing, it was essential for the court to determine the composite value. In this view of the matter it would have been appropriate for the court to avoid awarding of dissected amounts and at least the value of the trees could be collectively dealt with and included in the value of the land as even the supplementary award has already been placed on the record of the Court. 21. From the above discussion, I am of the considered view that there has been miscarriage of justice in the present case. The impugned award suffers from error of no evidence on record, as well as the error of considering inadmissible or irrelevant evidence. The court cannot overlook the factor that valuable properties of the claimants have been acquired. There is evidence on record to show that there were super-structures, trees and a developed land under acquisition. The evidence placed by them was duly exhibited in the Court as such they could be under the bonafide belief that such evidence is admissible and relevant. At the same time, over-looking the larger public interest would also not be permissible. Huge public money is involved. The irresponsible attitude of the counsel should not be permitted to frustrate the public interest. The Union of India and the State Government have not got a fair chance to produce relevant and proper evidence on record. Further more, their evidence has been ignored by the Court. It would be manifestation of injustice if the parties are not allowed to lead proper and admissible evidence on record to substantiate their claims before the learned reference Court. Further more, their evidence has been ignored by the Court. It would be manifestation of injustice if the parties are not allowed to lead proper and admissible evidence on record to substantiate their claims before the learned reference Court. As I have already noticed the present case has practically become a case of no evidence and as such determination of fresh compensation payable to the claimants cannot be appropriately granted by this Court for lack of sufficient evidence which could enable the court to pronounce a judgment equitably and fairly. 22. At this stage it will be appropriate to refer to a judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India and others v. Puran Banti and Ors. 9 (1999-2)121 P.L.R. 663 where the court after detailed discussed remanded the matter for appropriate adjudication and held as under;- "18. The cumulative effect of the above discussion is that it would not be fair and proper for this Court to determine the amount of compensation payable to the claimants and/or comment upon the claim of Union of India that the amount awarded by the learned counsel below is in excess, merely on the basis of the limited admissible evidence on record. The principles of fairness would demand that the party should be afforded an opportunity to prove the said documents in accordance with law. If the process of law is truncated with an object to award the amounts in the present manner, it is bound to prejudicially affect the interests of not only the union of India but also the claimants. The amount of village Oamtal would hardly be of any consequence as the amount stands considerably reduced and the land is located in an area of different State. Rival contention in regard to other two awards I do not wish to discuss on merits in detail, so as to avoid the rights of any party being jeopardised before the Court below. As the sale deeds are in admissible and interests of large number of claimants as well as of Union of India are very heavy, it would neither be fair nor equitable for this Court to pronounce the amount of compensation on more than one or two awards placed on record. As the sale deeds are in admissible and interests of large number of claimants as well as of Union of India are very heavy, it would neither be fair nor equitable for this Court to pronounce the amount of compensation on more than one or two awards placed on record. There is considerable variation even in the amounts awarded in those awards and the Court would have to find out some reasonable basis to award the amount of increase of those awards which again must be based on some evidence on record. In these circumstances, the interest of justice demands that the matter should be remanded to the learned Court below for adjudication and determination of compensation in accordance with law. Such an approach would not be derivative in any manner, but would be reiteration of the directive contained in the judgment of Supreme Court of India the case of P. Venkaiah A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 2600 (supra). 19. Another essential feature which the Court must take into consideration is that the present cases before the learned trial Court are not one the cases of no evidence or where there is no possibility of proper evidence which is admissible in accordance with law being led before the learned trial Court. In fact the parties had led evidence which is not admissible as per law but can be rendered admissible by compliance to the required principles of law and the principles enunciated by the Honble Apex Court as stated above. The evidence now so produced would not only be relevant but would be enough material bearing on all aspects of this case i.e. award of compensation, element of increase, if the claimants are entitled to, and even for proper application of rule of thumb. Well accepted canon of law is that reason is the soul of the decision making process. Lack of reasoning would render judicial decision open to attack on that ground alone. Even on that analysis remand of the case would not only be justifiable but appears to be essential." 23. Further reference can also be made to the judgment of the Honble Apex Court to the case of L. Srinivasa Reddy and Ors. Lack of reasoning would render judicial decision open to attack on that ground alone. Even on that analysis remand of the case would not only be justifiable but appears to be essential." 23. Further reference can also be made to the judgment of the Honble Apex Court to the case of L. Srinivasa Reddy and Ors. v. The Mandal Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector;10 J.T. 2000(7) Supreme Court 535 where the Honble Apex Court held that if as stated by the High Court there was no evidence to determine the compensation, the proper course for the High Court was to have remitted the matter to the concerned authority to adduce evidence in that regard and then determine appropriate compensation or on the available material should have examined the matter and determine the appropriate compensation. Their Lordships then set aside the judgment of the High Court and remitted the matter to the revenue Court. In the present case I have already come to a conclusion that there is no adequate evidence on record by which the Court could determine as fair market value of the land and decide the appeals without prejudice to the right of the parties. Thus, the proper course of action is to remand the matter. 24. For the reasons aforestated, I accept the appeal filed by the Union of India and set aside the award/judgment dated 9.5.1992 passed by then learned District Judge, Gur- gaon. Further, the matter is remanded to the learned reference court at Gurgaon to de cide the matter after taking into consideration the relevant facts afore-noticed and also after granting an opportunity to either of the parties to the lis as expeditiously as possi ble and in any case not later than six moths from the date of commencement of proceed ings before to Court. The parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Gurgaon on 10.3.2002. Consequently, the appeal filed by the claimants is dismissed, however, appeal subject to the above directions.