BIRU RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHANDIGARH Administration issued Notification No. 10273-UTFI (IV)-78/110 dated 2.1.1979 vide which land/structures and trees were acquired by the U.T. Administration for the public purpose defined as "Construction of commercial complex for the Notified Area Committee Manimajra." It may be clarified that the Chandigarh Administration had also issued notification No. 3957-UTFI (IV)-10524-A dated 28.6.1978 vide which the land structures and trees in respect of similarly situated area had been acquired meaning thereby for the area in question two notifications had been issued but in any case nothing hinges on that.

(2.) THE appellants have not contested the award of Land Acquisition Collector in respect of the compensation awarded upon acquisition of the land and the structure but the appellants were not satisfied for the compensation awarded to them for fruit bearing trees grown in their respective lands. Being not satisfied, reference had been sought under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The enhancement had been sought on the ground that the fruit bearing trees cannot be equated with timber trees and both cannot be treated alike.

(3.) LEARNED District Judge declined the reference while relying upon the judgment of this Court in Nanak Singh v. Union of India, R.F.A. No. 1375 of 1975, decided on 15.10.1979 vide which the fruit bearing trees were not considered separate in any manner than the timber trees and the compensation was considered by determining their fuel value. The appellants had been allowed compensation by determining the fuel value in respect of the number of trees falling in the area concerned. Learned counsel for the appellant has made reference to the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Ranjit Singh v. The Union Territory of Chandigarh, 1984 R.R.R. 126 : 1983 P.L.R. 471 decided on 7.2.1983. The decision of the Single Bench of this Court was doubted because by virtue of the said judgment, the fruit bearing trees had been treated equivalent to the timber trees (fuel based). The question as to whether the fruit bearing trees can be treated equivalent to the timber trees was referred to the larger Bench. The Division Bench of this Court decided the question while rendering the judgment in Ranjit Singh's case (supra) (R.F.A. No. 284 of 1980). The judgment in Nanak Singh's case (supra), was overruled. It shall be apposite to refer the relevant para i.e. para 9, which reads as under :-