RANJIT SINGH Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these R. F. As. Nos. 280 and 284 of 1980; 962, 1112 to 1115 and 1397 of 1981; and L. P. As. Nos. 85, 86, 865, 941 and 990 of 1980, the principal question that arises for consideration relates to the market value of claimants' orchard land acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act ). Answer to this question incidentally also involves the consideration of the correctness of two Single Bench judgments of this Court in R. F. A. No. 1375 of 1977 (Nanak Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh), decided on Oct. 15, 1979** and R. F. A. No. 1137 of 1979 (Gurucharan Singh v. State of Haryana), decided on May 21, 1981 wherein a view has been expressed that the fruit trees growing in such land have only to be evaluated as timber. In the first of these two judgment, the learned single Judge has followed the ratio of his judgment in R. F. A. No. 658 of 1978 (Matu v. State of Haryana) which is now the subject matter of the abovenoted L. P. A. No. 865. Ratio of Nanak Singh's case (supra) has been followed in Gurucharan Singh's case (supra ). He learned counsel for the parties are agreed that to resolve the controversy noted above, only recorded of R. F. A. No. 284 of 1980 need be referred to. {** Reported in 1979 Rev LR 691. }

(2.) IN pursuance of a notification published under S. 4 of the Act, certain land of the appellant situated in village Buterla, Hadbast No. 200, was acquired by the Chandigarh Administration for the development of Sector 41 of the City of Chandigarh. For compensating the claimant, the Land Acquisition Collector split up the acquired property in two parts, namely, (i) land as such and (ii) the trees or the fruits bearing trees. Vide his Award No. 233/lao dated April 7, 1975, he determined the market value of the land, that is, the land without trees. The claimant had admittedly been paid that compensation and the matter is no more in dispute before us. The present controversy only relates to the payment of the market price of the tress, that is, the orchard or fruit bearing trees which has been determined by the Collector which has been determined by the Collector vide his Award No. 240/lao dated Dec. 19, 1975. The reason for not giving one award for the acquired land is mentioned by the Collector in the latter award in the following words :--

(3.) AS the claimant did not accept the compensation awarded for the orchard as fair and just, he sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Court, Chandigarh, however, declined to enhance the compensation as according to it the claimants had failed to prove the inadequacy of the compensation granted. This is what led to the filing of this regular first appeal.