RAMESH CHAND Vs. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel, and with their assistance record of the Court below has also been examined. Land measuring 1 bigha 19 biswa belonging to the appellants was intended to be acquired for a public purpose, namely construction of Himri -Valley Road. Steps for its acquisition were initiated by issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), dated 23rd November, 1989. This notification was published in the HP. Government Rajpatra on 16th September, 1989. This was followed by Notification under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act.

(2.) At the time of hearing of this appeal, Mr. Ronta, learned Counsel for the appellants, submitted that stand oi his clients before the learned court below and even at the time of hearing of this appeal is that assessment and award of compensation qua land in question is correct, as such they did not challenge it anywhere. He, however, stated that assessment of fruit bearing trees numbering 32 which were standing on the land in question is not in accordance with law governing the same. This if fact did not indicate the market value of such trees on the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act. As such his clients claimed reference for determination of their correct market value on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, by claiming reference under Section 18 of the Act. Thus prayer was made, to refer the matter to court for doing the needful. He further pointed out that assessment is made by the officials of the Horticulture Department of the respondent. According to him basis for assessing compensation is the formula prepared by the then Director of Horticulture of the respondent, Shri Harbans Singh, as far as back in the year 1966. Looking to the enormous increase in the cost of inputs of manures, pesticides, insecticides, wages etc., the Land Acquisition Collector as well as the Court below both fell into error by not giving adequate relief qua the compensation so far fruit bearing trees numbering 32 were concerned.

(3.) With a view to support his case, Mr. Ronta besides referring to the statements of his client, placed reliance on the statement of PW -3 M.R. Chaudhary, Horticulture Development Officer, as well as his report Ex. PW -3/A. For enhancement of compensation reference was also made by Mr. Ronta to the statement of PW -4 J.K. Kaith, Investigator Grade -II from the office of Labour Burau, Shimla. This witness, according to Mr. Ronta, stated that between 1966 to 1989 there has been increase of 456 per cent in the consumer price index. According to Mr. Ronta, his clients are entitled to the increase atleast four and half times on the compensation assessed vide Ex. PW -1/A by none else, but an official of the Horticulture Department of the respondent. This document per him was not disputed even by the respondent. He also pointed out that in addition to this sum, his clients are also entitled to solatium and interest on the entire compensation, i.e. compensation as well as solatium in accordance with law.