SUKHDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of Regular First Appeal No. 1844 of 1986 preferred by Sukhdev Singh, landowner, and Regular First Appeal No. 2344 and 2722 of 1986 preferred by the State of Punjab as they arise out of the same award of the Additional District Judge, Patiala, and rest upon the same evidence.

(2.) In brief the relevant facts are that in pursuance of the notification published on 13/14-12-1982 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the State of Punjab acquired some land located in the revenue estate of village Mandian, tehsil Rajpura, district Patiala for the construction of Sutlej Yamuna Link canal at public expense. The main award regarding the compensation of the land was given by the Land Acquisition Collector on 23-3-1984. The supplementary award was given by the Land Aquisition Collector regarding the compensation of eucalyptus trees growing on a part of the acquired land comprised in khasras No 702 and 703. The Collector awarded compensation of eucalyptus trees at the rate of Rs. 188.65 P. per tree 15% solatium over and above the said compensation was also awarded. Out of those trees, 2100 belonged to Sukhdev Singh, the claimant-appellant. Being dissatisfied with the adequacy of the compensation of the trees awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, Sukhdev Singh and others successfully sought references under section 18 of the Act to the Court of District Judge, Patiala. The Additional District Judge, Patiala, vide his impugned award dated April 29, 1986, enhanced tile compensation of each trees to Rs. 560/- by taking into consideration that it will yield at least two crops. Benefits under the amended provisions of the Act were also awarded. Still being dissatisfied with the adequacy of the compensation of the eucalyptus trees, Sukhdev Singh claimant, has preferred Regular First Appeal No. 1844 of 1986 contending that at least he was entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per tree. The State of Punjab being aggrieved against the above referred award of the Additional District Judge has preferred Regular First Appeals Nos. 2344 and 2722 of 1986.

(3.) Mr. S.M.L. Arora, learned counsel for the claimant, maintained that the eucalyptus tree yields at least three crops and that the lower Court had wrongly awarded compensation for two crops only. It was also maintained that the evidence of Shri Jaswant Singh Kohli (AW-2), Deputy Divisional Forest Officer, was not appraised in the right context by the lower Court. Mr. K.P. Bhandari, the then learned Advocate General, Punjab, assisted by Mr. Ravi Kapur, Advocate, on the other hand maintained that the Additional District Judge had wrongly enhanced the compensation of the trees on surmises as there was no cogent evidence on the record about the actual growth of the trees at the time of the acquisition of the concerned land.