Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
S.S.Sandhawalia and I.S.Tiwana JJ.
Ranjit Singh
Versus
Union Territory Of Chandigarh
Civil Regular First Appeal No. 284 of 1980,
Decided On : FEBRUARY 7, 1983
LAND ACQUISITION - COMPENSATION - MARKET VALUE - FRUIT TREES - EVALUATION - TIMBER VALUE - CAPITALISATION METHOD - FORMULA FOR EVALUATION - INCREASE IN PRICE SINCE 1966.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant's orchard land was acquired by the Chandigarh Administration for the development of Sector 41. The Land Acquisition Collector split up the acquired property into two parts: (i) land as such and (ii) trees or fruit-bearing trees. The claimant was paid compensation for the land, but the dispute related to the compensation for the trees. The Land Acquisition Court declined to enhance the compensation, and the claimant filed a regular first appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Land Acquisition Collector erred in passing two separate awards for (i) land and (ii) fruit trees or trees. The court also held that the practice of determining the market value of the land and the orchard or fruit trees separately cannot work to the detriment of the claimant. The court further held that the fruit trees cannot be evaluated as timber only and that the method of evaluating the acquired land on the basis of the annual value of the produce thereof or in accordance with the formula known as capitalisation is not appropriate in cases of acquisition of grove lands.
Issues: 1. Whether the Land Acquisition Collector erred in passing two separate awards for (i) land and (ii) fruit trees or trees? 2. Whether the practice of determining the market value of the land and the orchard or fruit trees separately can work to the detriment of the claimant? 3. Whether the fruit trees can be evaluated as timber only? 4. Whether the method of evaluating the acquired land on the basis of the annual value of the produce thereof or in accordance with the formula known as capitalisation is appropriate in cases of acquisition of grove lands?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Land Acquisition Collector erred in passing two separate awards for (i) land and (ii) fruit trees or trees because the Act envisages one award for one acquisition. 2. The practice of determining the market value of the land and the orchard or fruit trees separately cannot work to the detriment of the claimant because payment of compensation in matters of compulsory acquisition cannot be left to the sweet will of the Collector. 3. The fruit trees cannot be evaluated as timber only because there is a clear distinction in the valuation of a fruit tree and timber. 4. The method of evaluating the acquired land on the basis of the annual value of the produce thereof or in accordance with the formula known as capitalisation is not appropriate in cases of acquisition of grove lands because it may result in payment of double compensation to the claimant.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgments under appeal, and sent the cases back to the respective Land Acquisition Courts to redetermine the market price of the trees of the claimants in accordance with law and the observations made in the judgment.
I.S.TIWANA, J.
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/s. Union Territory of Chandigarh), decided on Oct.15, 1979*and R.F.A. No.1137 of 1979 (Gurucharan Singh V/s. 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 judgments, the learned single Judge has followed the ratio of his judgment in R.F.A. No. 658 of 1978 (Matu V/s. State of Haryana) which is now the subject matter of the abovenoted L.P.A. No.865. Ratio of Nana Singh case (supra) has been followed in Gurucharan Singh s case (supra). The learned counsel for the parties are agreed that to resolve the controversy noted above, only records of R.F.A. No.284 of 1980 need be referred to.
2. In pursuance of a notification published under Sec.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 fruit 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 has 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 trees, that is, the orchard or fruit bearing trees 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 :-
"These trees could not be acquired earlier along with the land because the assessment of the value of the trees had not been received from expert Executive Engineer, Horticulture Division. The fruit value of the trees has been forwarded by the Executive Engineer, Horticulture Division, Chandigarh, vide Memo No. 1458, D/-March 25, 1975; Memo No. 6400, D/-Aug. 29, 1975 and D. O. No. 1044, D/-Nov. 4, 1975. The timber value of the trees has been assessed by the expert Divisional Forest Officer, Chandigarh and has been forwarded vide his Memo No. 1465, D/-March 24, 1975."
At a later stage he mentioned that the assessment made by the two experts was based upon an accepted expert formula, particulars of which, of course, are not mentioned.
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 claimant had failed to prove the inadequacy of the compensation granted. This is what led to the filing of this regular first appeal.
4. Though the conferment of power of compulsory acquisition of immovable property through legislation never presented any difficulty, yet the question of determination of the market value of the acquired property appears to have been a matter of controversy right from the inception of the Act. This aspect is well reflected by para 14 of the report dated March 23, 1893 of the Select Committee which scrutinised the draft bill, which reads as under :-
"The section as drafted in the bill contained a definition of market value to which exception has been widely taken as inapplicable to any part of the country an
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
