SUKHDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to the judgment of the learned Single Judge recorded in R.F.A. No. 2344 of 1986 dated August 29, 1989 by which while hearing a set of appeals filed by the claimants and the one by the State against the judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge dated April 29, 1986, the market value of the eucalyptus trees was reduced from the one assessed by the said Court. Whereas, learned Additional District Judge assessed the market value of eucalyptus trees @ Rs. 280x2=Rs. 560/-, it was reduced Rs. 188.65x2=377.30 per tree. In the manner aforesaid, whereas, the two appeals filed by the claimants were dismissed, the one filed by the State was allowed. Hence the present Letters Patent Appeal.

(2.) BEFORE we might evaluate the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, it will be useful to mention the facts culminating in filing of the present Letters Patent Appeal.

(3.) MR . Palli, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contends that while evaluating the trees, the learned Trial Court, as also learned Single Judge relied upon testimony of Shri Jaswant Singh Kohli (AW-2), a Government Official being posted as Deputy Divisional Forest Officer, Patiala. He is an expert in Forestry and was serving in the Forest Department and had Diploma in Forestry from Government College, Dharamshala. On the basis of the evidence given by this witness the value of the matured euvalyptus tree was worked out at Rs. 320. The evidence of this witness, as mentioned above, has also been accepted by the learned Single Judge. Mr. Palli contends that the price of the trees has been reduced and worked out at the rate, same was done by the Land Acquisition Collector by simply mentioning that the report of Expert was two years later when notification under Section 4 was issued and, therefore, during the period of two years, price of the trees would have appreciated to a large extent or at least to the extent of 20%. It is urged that even if the said finding may be based upon good reasons, yet, even by that method, the price of the trees could not have been worked out less than the one determined by learned Additional District Judge.