JUDGMENT Mr. K. Kannan, J.: - Both the appeals are at the instance of the landowners, seeking for enhancement of compensation for the value of land and the trees acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. RFA No.1115 of 1992 is in respect of LAC No.9 of 1985/1991 and RFA No.1116 of 1992 is in respect of LAC No.10 of 1985/1991. Both the cases have been disposed of on the same day through independent orders passed by the Additional District Judge, Ambala, on 03.12.1991. 2. The acquisition in LAC No.9 of 1985/1991 related to an area of land measuring 1675 acres 2 bigha 1 biswa of Village Asrewali for the purpose of forest plantation and for soil conservation measures. The other village i.e. Nadlan which was the subject of acquisition in LAC No.10 of 1985/1991 was with reference to an extent of 1526 acres 9 biswas. The value of land and trees in both the villages were admitted to be the same and the consideration of both the cases would therefore be without making any distinction between the villages. The notification for acquisition for both the villages were also on the same date, namely, on 25.09.1980. The Land Acquisition Collector had determined the value of the property at Rs.640/- per acre. The claim of the owner for value of the trees had been completely rejected on the ground that the landowners had cut and removed all the trees which were of some value and utility and what remained were only shrubs and young crops of no commercial value. 3. Before the Reference Court, it was contended that the property acquired abutted the road leading from Panchkula to Morni Hills and some other land held by the very same owner in Village Nadlan had been acquired already in the year 1971 @ Rs.1,608/- per acre against the value claimed by the owner at Rs.8,000/- per acre. As regards the value of the trees, the contention was that there were more than 60,000 khair trees in the village Asrewali and about 90,000 khair trees in the Village Nadlan. There were also fruit bearing and eucalyptus trees standing on the acquired land. The value of the khair trees was at least Rs.50/- per tree and the price of timber and fruit bearing trees must have been assessed at least @ Rs.25/- per tree. There were also fruit bearing and eucalyptus trees standing on the acquired land. The value of the khair trees was at least Rs.50/- per tree and the price of timber and fruit bearing trees must have been assessed at least @ Rs.25/- per tree. There was also fodder and babbar grass and the landowner had claimed Rs.44,75,000/- for the fodder in the village Asrewali and Rs.65,75,000/- for the village Nadlan. 4. Taking up the issue regarding the value of land and considering the contention made by the landowners that the Government had acquired their own land in Nadlan earlier at Rs.1,608/- per acre for the acquisition of the year 1971 and, therefore, for the acquisition made after nearly 10 years, there should be a provision for escalation @ 12% per year, the Reference Court made observation to the field map filed as R7 to hold that the Village Bhoj Mataur adjoined the acquired village Asrewali. A witness PW8-Rati Ram had stated that jungles of both the villages were hilly terrain and recorded as gair mumkin pahar in the revenue records. Ex.R1 which was a judgment of the High Court was in relation to property in Bhoj Mataur where an extent of 5643 acres in the said village had been acquired, apart from other lands in adjoining revenue estates. The High Court determined the valuation for the acquisition notification of the year 1968 at Rs.290/- per acre. The Court took the valuation given for the adjoining forest for the acquisition made in the year 1968 to the property in Nadlan acquired through a notification of the year 1971 through Ex.AW11/1. The Court held that acquisition was for relatively smaller extent and was acquired for construction of road, whereas the area now acquired was for the purpose of forest plantation. The property acquired for the construction of road was comparatively stable and of easy slopes whereas the large area now acquired was highly uneven having steep and eroded slopes. The acquisition of a large strip of land which went for laying road could not be valued on the same basis as the valuation of larger extent of land for forest purposes. I see the logic in this contention and I find that the valuation provided in AW11/1 alone could not be the basis for ascertainment of compensation for large tract of land acquired. 5. I see the logic in this contention and I find that the valuation provided in AW11/1 alone could not be the basis for ascertainment of compensation for large tract of land acquired. 5. If the valuation of the property acquired for the roads themselves could not be the basis for assessment of compensation, the question that should naturally arise would be whether the valuation for the land made in Bhoj Mataur in the year 1968 could provide the basis for the assessment of compensation for the property acquired 12 years later. Taking the valuation given for the acquisition made in the year 1968 at Rs.290/- per acre as the basis, the Court provided for 12% increase on that rate and made determination of the valuation for the property at Rs.730/- per acre. 6. When the acquisition is made in respect of ordinary lands which are marketable in the sense of what a willing seller and willing purchaser would be prepared to receive and pay respectively, it would be difficult to look for valuation of properties for forest, for, it is not marketable. There are no sale deeds that could provide suitable exemplars for the valuation. There has to be a certain amount of guesswork done. Instead of taking the valuation for the property acquired in the year 1968 and work out the escalation for 12 more years, I would find that the price assessed by the Government for acquisition of the landowners’ holding from the very same village Nadlan in the year 1971 should be taken but a suitable deduction must be made for consideration of the fact that the previous acquisition had been for laying a road, while the subsequent acquisition was for afforestation. The previous acquisition was in a narrow strip of land while the subsequent acquisition was for large chunk of land in a much more difficult terrain. For wild undulations, I would provide for a cut of 50% and take the valuation of the property at Rs.800/- per acre in 1971 and provide for escalation of 10% for the period from 1971 to 1980. This would make for an additional value of Rs.720/- and I would, therefore, take the value at Rs.1,520/- per acre. The value per acre would, therefore, stand increased from Rs.730/- per acre to Rs.1,520/-. 7. This would make for an additional value of Rs.720/- and I would, therefore, take the value at Rs.1,520/- per acre. The value per acre would, therefore, stand increased from Rs.730/- per acre to Rs.1,520/-. 7. The learned senior counsel Shri Sanjeev Sharma appearing on behalf of the petitioner made substantial arguments only with reference to the denial of any relief for the value of the trees. The senior counsel pointed out that the property held in the possession of the landowners was not merely a forest that had been left unattended. On the other hand, it had been husbanded with reasonable care under the guidance of the Forest Department itself. The whole property was admittedly a notified forest and therefore, there had been certain compulsions for the landowners to apply themselves to the directives of the Forest Department as regards the claims for soil conservation and for promoting social forestry. The cutting of trees themselves could not be done by the landowners at their own whims, but they were allowed under the supervision of the Government in periodical intervals. The trees were cut in a block of 5 years as was evident from the version of the witnesses. RW1-R.C. Trigotra, Divisional Forest Officer, had stated in the course of his chief-examination that the petitioner had cut 17,500 khair trees in the year 1980 and 1652 eucalyptus trees in the year 1982 from the acquired land. There were no other cuttable trees except the trees which could not be cut for soil conservation purposes and the trees which were standing along the nallas and steep slopes. This part of the chief-examination itself reveals that all the trees had not been cut. If some of the trees could not be cut for the purpose of soil conservation, it would only mean that the trees which were cut had grown in a cycle that would allow for cutting a portion and leave the rest for soil conservation. The trees that remained in the forest without being cut could not have been totally discarded for the purpose of valuation. Elsewhere in the cross-examination, the State witness RW 1had admitted as follows:- “.....I cannot tell the girth of the mango trees standing at that point. In addition to the khair trees, the trees of mango, Jamun, Sain, Awlan, Kikkar etc. were also standing in the acquired land. However, those trees were standing along the Nallas. Elsewhere in the cross-examination, the State witness RW 1had admitted as follows:- “.....I cannot tell the girth of the mango trees standing at that point. In addition to the khair trees, the trees of mango, Jamun, Sain, Awlan, Kikkar etc. were also standing in the acquired land. However, those trees were standing along the Nallas. I do not remember the price of the mango fruits prevalent in the year 1980. ..................” PW11-Tika Jagjit Singh has spoken about the fruit bearing trees and other trees as follows:- “...........The trees grow in abundance on acquired area of both the villages. The species of the trees include khar, shisham, sain, jingan, chhal, ber, kikar, jand, etc. which are non-fruit bearing type. The fruit bearing trees include khazoor, Amla, Jamun, Mango, etc. To add with a list of non-bearing fruit trees, dhak and haldoo also grow on that acquired area. Fodder grass and babbar grass also grow in plenty on the acquired area. Babbar grass is used as raw material for manufacture of paper and also for preparing ropes and baan. I used to auction babbar grass every year. Some time, it was sold otherwise than in auction. The annual income from fruit of trees and from the babbar grass amounted to Rs.1 lac. My own land in village Nadlan has previously been acquired by the State for construction of Panchkula-Morna Road. The area acquired was 25. 19 acres equal to 120 bighas 18 biswas. Notification u/s 4 of that acquisition was issued in June, 1971......” The need to assess compensation for trees did not arise, because after I came to know of the Govt. intention to make acquisition. I had applied to the Forest Department to permit me to cut the trees, which they allowed and I accordingly, cut the trees. Copy of the award in that case is Ex.AW11/1. ..............”. The eucalyptus trees (have) also copices and developed into a full tree after about 10 to 12 years. It is correct that after every five years, I was given permission by the Forest Department to cut and remove khair trees from the acquired land. ......” 8. The learned senior counsel points out to the entire evidence given by the petitioner as regards the existence of trees or the valuation of trees, there had been no cross-examination at all. It is correct that after every five years, I was given permission by the Forest Department to cut and remove khair trees from the acquired land. ......” 8. The learned senior counsel points out to the entire evidence given by the petitioner as regards the existence of trees or the valuation of trees, there had been no cross-examination at all. Elsewhere in the statement, he has also stated about the number of trees in both the villages:- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- “Nadlan village: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Khair trees 90,000 2. Other trees 60,000 3. Safeda trees 5,000 4. Babbar grass etc. In plenty ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Asrewali village ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Khair trees 60,000 2. Other trees 35,000 3. Babbar grass In plenty” ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9. That forest trees had immense value and they had a market are sought to be urged by the petitioner by reference to a scheme issued by the Government referring to past history and the manner of permissions granted at various time for felling of trees. In Ramgargh Soil Conservation, there is a reference to the fact that khair trees of about ½ inches would be sold for manufacture of khata in a block of 5 years during the years 1966-67, 1971-72 and 1976-77 and trees of 3 inches could be sold once in a year in 1967-68, 1972- 73 and 1977-78. The contention of the landowners is that cyclical cutting of various type of trees in different years had been followed and they were due for cutting after 3 years after 1976-77 and 1977- 78 respectively for khair trees and eucalyptus trees. The scheme came in to force in 1967 and would cover a period of 10 years upto 31.03.1976. The learned counsel would make reference to the fact that the revenue for the sale of grass and babbar per annum would be Rs.3,000/- and the revenue for sale of khair trees would be Rs.14,500/-. The annual income would be about Rs.70,000/-. 10. The learned senior counsel would argue that the Reference Curt was in error in completely rejecting a claim for compensation of trees on a wrong understanding that all the trees had been allowed to cut by the landowners at the time of acquisition. In this case, it appears that there had been a petition filed by the landowner himself for appointment of a Commissioner to make a personal inspection and to report on the existence of trees. In this case, it appears that there had been a petition filed by the landowner himself for appointment of a Commissioner to make a personal inspection and to report on the existence of trees. The petition was contested by the State and it came to be dismissed. The learned counsel would argue that the dismissal of the petition itself was erroneous and it constitutes a great prejudice in not availing to the landowner the right to place even the best evidence especially when the State was contesting the petitioner’s claim that a large number of trees had remained uncut and the State was taking up a false plea that there remained no uncut trees. I would find the dismissal of the petition for appointment of a Commissioner on a contest by the State to be unfair. The petitioner had nothing to hide. He was prepared to defy the State contest and show that the trees did exist. The government had not allowed for the best of evidence to be placed in Court. It ought to have meant no prejudice if such an inspection had been done. The learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the landowner, who was giving evidence that all the trees had been literally accounted for and counted by several of the persons whom he had employed, had merely given his own evidence and did not place before Court the evidence of persons, who had counted the trees and to give their own direct evidence. 11. I find that there had been a certain lapse on the part of the landowner in not placing the evidence of the persons, who had actually done the counting but it will be too unfair to deny the entire claim for compensation for trees with a sweeping statement that all the trees must have been cut, in the light of admissions of the state witness about the existence of trees along the nulla and such of the trees which were not cut for soil conservation purposes along with the fact that there was no cross examination of the petitioner about the number of trees which he claimed had existed at the property. I find the defence of the State itself to be inappropriate. The State in a land acquisition case is not an adversary in the conventional sense of litigation. I find the defence of the State itself to be inappropriate. The State in a land acquisition case is not an adversary in the conventional sense of litigation. It owed a duty to the Court to render assistance for proper assessment of valuation. There could not have been a defence in the manner put forward by the State before the Reference Court to contend that there were no trees at all when the extent of the property was more than 3000 acres in two villages in forest land. It ought to have assisted the Court in securing the best evidence and when an offer was made by the petitioner that an actual inspection must have taken, it ought not to be contested at all by the State in an acquisition relating to the adjoining village where the forest was belonging to one Mir Mohd. Raj Ali Khan. This Court has had an occasion to deal with the acquisition and determined compensation for the value of the trees in the forest. The judgment rendered by this Court in Mir Mohd. Raza Ali Khan and another Versus The State of Haryana and another in RFA No.805 of 1973 has been placed on record by the Government itself. The Court determined an average price for ordinary of general type of trees to be Rs.10/- and provided for Rs.8.75 for khair variety of trees. This judgment itself does not give me any guidance for determination of value of trees for the case has to be decided only on the basis of evidence placed before this Court. 12. It will be wrong to contend that there were no trees. Admittedly it was a forest land and the purpose of acquisition itself was for the purpose of afforestation and for soil conservation. The ecological concerns of the State surely had to be respected and private holding in respect of forest ought to be surrendered to the eminent domain of the State for better management. It would be meaningless to contend that the Government was acquiring a property that was totally denuded and defied even the appellation, forest. There could not be a forest without trees unless a deliberate act of pillage had been practiced by the landowners. 13. It would be meaningless to contend that the Government was acquiring a property that was totally denuded and defied even the appellation, forest. There could not be a forest without trees unless a deliberate act of pillage had been practiced by the landowners. 13. After the case was reserved for orders and after inspection of the records, I was of the view that the State ought to have in its custody records to show the actual trees that were still existing on the land at the time of acquisition and the trees which remained, as admitted by RW1 ought to have been cut and the proceedings for such cutting would reveal the actual value of the properties. I had, therefore, passed an order on 20.09.2012 reopening the case and calling for the files relating to acquisition of properties and the manner of user subsequent to such acquisition for a period of 5 years. The State counsel took time for production of records and ultimately produced the Work Target Register, Panchkula Range on 12.10.2012. 14. The register does not really show much. It is seen that for the year 1979-80 i.e. prior to the notification eucalyptus trees have been registered as in existence in 10 hectares and the khair trees in 5 hectares in Asrewali village and for Nadlan village, 13 hectares of land have been registered with trees as having been in existence for the year 1978-79. The register also shows the work undertaken for the planting, soil conservation and maintenance for various years by the State from 1967-68 to 1976-1977. The expenditures have been very modest in few thousand of rupees and it is unnecessary to refer to them. The annual plan operation for the years subsequent to the date of acquisition commences only from 1989-90. The targeted quantity of the plants to be raised is in the range of about 20 to 30 hectares on average and the trees targeted to be planted are in the range of about 10,000 to 30,000 on average. The petitioner has made an assertion in his application for appointment of a Commissioner that there were about 60,000 khair trees and 35,000 trees of other kind, namely safeda, timber and fruit bearing trees. The petitioner has also made an assertion that the Land Acquisition Collector had been wrong in stating that there were no trees standing in the land in dispute. The petitioner has also made an assertion that the Land Acquisition Collector had been wrong in stating that there were no trees standing in the land in dispute. The reference court has found that the petitioner had not proved before the Collector the existence of trees. It is wholly irrelevant, since that opportunity could never be said to be lost, when an adjudication was required to be done exactly for that purpose. The finding by the reference court that the petitioner had failed to prove the existence of trees was not merely palpably wrong and erroneous, but also against the factual position. In order to ascertain the factual position of the land in dispute regarding the existence of trees and the number, age and valuation, it would have been only equitable and proper that Local Commissioner be appointed to go to the spot and submit a report with reference to the existence of trees or otherwise, crops of fodder grass, babbar grass etc. The petitioner indeed sought for a restraint for pending application that the trees should not be cut. The respondents have filed reply stating that as per the record maintained by the State, there were about 10501 khair trees and the petitioner had been permitted to cut the trees in the year 1980-81. As regards the existence of fodder and babbar grass, the contention in the reply was that there was no grass at all in the land in question and that the claimant had not proved his claim before the Land Acquisition Collector. As already observed, the failure to prove the existence of trees before the Collector could never have concluded the issue. When there was a reference for ascertainment of value of trees and for enhancement of compensation, the issue was very much open and the landowner was entitled to give appropriate evidence on the existence of trees, their valuation etc. When the landowner was making affirmation on oath about the existence of trees and had also sought for the appointment of a Commissioner to call the bluff to what the State was contending, the Court had committed a serious error in not appointing the Commissioner and ascertained the value. When the petitioner was making an assertion that there were at least about 60,000 khair trees, and 35,000 other trees, the respondent was denying the existence of those trees. When the petitioner was making an assertion that there were at least about 60,000 khair trees, and 35,000 other trees, the respondent was denying the existence of those trees. On the other hand, the State was contending that there were only about 10,500 trees as per the records, but they had also been cut. The contention that the trees were all cut petitioner ought to be false. The register produced before the Court itself shows that there had been khair and eucalyptus trees in an extent of over 28 hectares in both the villages. I would take the khair trees as 60,000 and take the existence of 35,000 other trees like safeda, etc. as proved by what was stated in the petition for appointment of Commissioner. I will take the value of a khair tree at Rs.50/- per tree and take the average value of other trees at Rs.25/- per tree. The value of khair tree consequently be Rs.30,00,000/- in both Asrewali and Nadlan villages and Rs.8,75,000/- as regards the existence of other trees including safeda. I will make a deduction of 15% for felling and transporting them and take the net valuation at Rs.32,83,750 for both the villages. 15. PW6-Kishan Chand, Clerk at the office of DFO, Pinjore, had brought the original records for sale of babbar grass in both the villages Asrewali and Nadlan. The sale of babbar grass in the year 1984-85 was Rs.9,600/- and the sale price for the grass in the year 1985-86 was Rs.13,000/-. In Asrewali village, the grass in the year 1984-85 was sold at Rs.16,500/- and for the year 1985-86, it was again sold at Rs.16,500/-. I would, therefore, value of babbar grass at an average value of Rs.12,500/- each for the villages Asrewali and Nadlan. There is no clear admission of the existence of the actual number of trees in each village, though it is stated in the oral evidence of the petitioner that there were 90,000 khair trees, 60,000 other trees and 5000 safeda trees in Nadlan village and 60,000 khair trees, 35,000 other trees in Asrewali vilage but I have discarded the evidence and taken the number of trees as stated in the petition for appointment of commissioner. The petitioner’s evidence itself is for both the villages. I am not therefore specifically estimating the value of trees in each village. The petitioner’s evidence itself is for both the villages. I am not therefore specifically estimating the value of trees in each village. The valuation which I have made must be taken for both the villages but since two awards have been passed, I will take the value of khair trees and other trees in both the villages to be equal. 16. In the light of what I have stated, the value of khair and other trees in Village Asrewali is half the value mentioned above, namely, Rs.16, 41,275 and to which must be added a further sum of Rs.12,500/- for fodder grass. The total of which comes to Rs.16,54,375, rounded off as Rs.16,50,000. The same shall also be the value for the trees and grass for the Village Nadlan. 17. The disposition shall be that the value of the land per acre in both the appeals would be Rs.1,520/- per acre with interest, solatium and additional amount as provided in statute as regards the valuation for land . The value of the trees in each of the appeals would be Rs.16,50,000. This amount will attract interest as provided under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. 18. The appeals are allowed to the above extent with proportionate costs as regards court fees. Counsel’s fee shall be Rs.10,000/- in each case.