The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to compensation for trees standing on the acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - This judgment shall be read in continuation of the order dated April 27, 1987, passed by this Court.

2. This Regular First Appeal has been filed by the claimant land-owner against the award date June 3, 1985, passed by Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, vide which the market value of the acquired land was assessed at the rate of Rs. 26/- per square yard and the appellant was also granted all the statutory benefits under the amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), including the benefits of 12% additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.

3. In the instant case, the State of Haryana acquired a big chunk of land vide notification dated 23.11.1979, issued under Section 4 of the Act in the revenue estates of Gurgaon, Anayatpur and Daulatpur-Nasirabad, Tehsil and District Gurgaon, for a public purpose i.e. for defence purpose. The Land Acquisition Collector, vide her award dated 11.11.1980, determined the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 11/- per square yard. However, the appellant was not awarded any compensation on account of severance of his land and the trees standing on the acquired land. Feeling dis-satisfied with this award, the appellant sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. The learned Reference Court, vide its award dated June 13, 1985, enhanced the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 26/- per square yard, as indicated above. However, claim of the appellant regarding compensation on account of severance and trees standing on the acquired land was declined. Against the said award, the instant Regular First Appeal has been filed by the appellant.

4. Initially, this appeal was disposed of by this Court on April 8, 1987 in terms of the decision rendered in Regular First Appeal No. 933 of 1985, which was arising from the same acquisition, in which the market value of the acquired land was enhanced from Rs. 26/- to Rs. 30/- per square yard. Subsequently, on an application filed by the appellant, the said order was re-called by this Court vide order dated April 21, 1987, as while disposing of the appeal the claim of the appellant regarding entitlement of compensation on account of severance and trees standing on the acquired land was not considered. Thereafter, the matter was considered on merits and vide order dated 27.4.1987, this Court partly allowed the appeal qua the acquired land and the value of the acquired land of the appellant was assessed at Rs. 30/- per square yard in terms of the decision rendered by this Court in RFA No. 933 of 1985 (Dhani Ram v. Haryana State and others) decided on April 8, 1987. The appellant was also held to be entitled for all the statutory benefits under the amended provisions of the Act, including 12% additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. Regarding claim of the appellant for compensation on account of severance; it was held that there was no substance in the said claim. However, regarding the claim of the appellant for compensation for the trees standing on the acquired land, report of the Additional District Judge was called for under Order 41 Rule 25 of the CPC whereby he was directed to assess the market value of the trees standing on the acquired land on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, after taking evidence from both the parties.

5. In compliance of the aforesaid order dated April 27, 1987, the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon submitted his report dated October 13, 1987, in which he determined the market value of the trees standing on the acquired land on the date of notification as Rs. 1,30,000/-. The appellant, through his counsel, filed objections to the aforesaid report under Order 41 Rule 26 CPC and pleaded that the learned Additional District Judge determined the market value of the trees standing on the acquired land on a lower side.

6. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have per