JOGINDER SINGH SAINI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of five Claimants' Appeals R. F. As. Nos. 688 to 692 of 1979 and five cross appeals R. F. As. 1109 to 1113 of 1979, as they arise out of the same acquisition proceedings.

(2.) By notification dated 24th March, 1971 published on 30th March, 1971, the State of Haryana acquired 11.38 Acres of land in the area of Faridabad for the planned development under S. 19. The claimants had set up orchard on the acquired land ad on open spaces the claimants were carrying on the business of nursery plantation. Before the Land Acquisition Collector the claimants asked for compensation for the land under neath the orchard, and the nursery plants. By award dated 22nd February, 1973 the Land Acquisition Collector allowed compensation for the land at the rate of Rs. 5.95 per square yard. For the orchard the claimants were allowed the following compensation as shown against their respective appeals :- For nursery plantation nothing was allowed and the claimants were allowed three months' time to remove the saplings. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid award the claimants sought reference which came up for consideration before the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, who on the Contest of the parties framed several issues. After the evidence was led, the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, by award dated 30th December, 1978, allowed compensation for the Land at the rate of Rs. 10/- per sqaure yard and doubled the compensation for orchard As regards the nursery plants, nothing was allowed on the reasoning that the claimants were unable to show that the Land Acquisition Collector could not give directing for removing the nursery plants. Feeling dissatisfied with the award of the Court below. the claimants well as the State have come up in these appeals to this Court.

(3.) Cases of acquisition of orchards have been coming before me for decision and in every case I have taken the view that there would be more than one way of assessing the compensation for an orchard and the claimants would be entitled to ask for the highest compensation to be calculated in those ways. I have also held that the claimants cannot ask for compensation for the land under neath the orchard plus compensation for the orchard to be calculated on the schedule or formula prepared by the government for fruit bearing trees because if this is allowed, then the claimants would be paid compensation for the land twice. However, I am of the firm view that the compensation to be calculated for orchard on the basis of formula prepared by the Government or on the basis of annual value of the produce of the orchard. Would mean the total compensation for the orchard as a whole i. e. the fruit bearing trees and the land on which they are growing. Different counsels have been appearing and no one was able to support that the claimants would be entitled to compensation for the lad plus for the orchard either on the basis of the capitalised value of the annual income of the orchard, or on the basis of the formula prepared by the State Government.