Compensation for land acquisition must reflect credible market rates for the value of trees, supported by detailed evidence; administrative estimates insufficient.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant, namely Tapan Kumar Datta from whom land total measuring 5.29 acres situated at Mouja Gakulnagar had been acquired by respondent No.1 for construction of N.E.C Road vide declaration No.F.9(8)Rev/Seq/II/2001 dated 07.01.2002.

3. Although the various classes of land acquired wherein he has been awarded a sum by the Land Acquisition Court, the appellant accepts the valuation made of the land. In the present appeal challenge is limited to the valuation made by the respondents of the segun plants (teak tree) said to have existed on the land in question which was acquired for the purpose noted hereinabove.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in course of acquisition, an estimate was made for the purpose of valuation of trees existing on the acquired land by the revenue authority which is quoted hereunder:

5. The amount computed by the revenue authorities was duly contested by the claimant claiming an amount Rs.11,97,000/- towards the loss of trees on the acquired land which reads as under :

'Description of trees with its claimed value.

1) 35 nos. of segun plant .................... Rs. 700/- x 35 = Rs. 24,500/-

2) 325 nos. of segun matured plant Having 4' feet girth and 30' feet length. ............. Rs. 3500/- x 325 = Rs. 11,37,500/-

3) 50 nos. of segun plant having girth 2' feet and 15 feet length ......... Rs. 700/- x 50 = Rs. 35,000/-

Total - Rs. 11,97,000/-

The claimant is praying for Rs. 11,97,000/- minimum as compensation for damage cost of trees and crops etc. when possession handed over to the O.P. the claimant protested that proper nos. and description of trees were not recorded by the staff of O.P. but without paying any heed to it, forcibly possession was taken. It is mentionable that cost of one feet segun wood is more than Rs. 500/- or more in the market.'

6. In support of the claim made by the claimant-appellant, a detailed analysis of how the claimant arrived at the claim figure was also produced before the Land Acquisition Judge which reads as under:

'Approximate volume and value of above said 410 Nos. of teak trees.

Formula - volume = (Girth)2 x Length/16

1) (35+50) = 85 nos. of segun plant of each girth minimum 2' feet i.e. 0'6 metre and approximate height of 15' feet minimum i.e. 4'5 meter.

Thus volume of each tree of girth 2' feet and approximate length 15' feet comes to (0'6)2 x 4'5 = 0.10 cum/16

Value of such each tree = 6000 x 0.01 Cum/= Rs. 600/- minimum.

Thus total value of 85 nos. of teak trees = 600 x 85/= Rs. 51000/-

2) 325 nos. of matured teak trees of each 4' feet (1.2 metre) girth and 30' feet (9.00 metre) minimum.

Thus volume of each such trees comes to (1.2)2 x 9.00 Cum/16 = 0.81 Cum.

Thus value of each such tree = 9000 x 0.81/= Rs. 7290/-

Now, value of 325 nos. of such trees = Rs. 23,69,250/-

Thus total value of all the trees come to Rs. 51,000/- plus Rs. 23,69,250/- in total Rs. 24,20,250/-

3) In this circumstances, it is humbly prayed that your honour would be pleased to consider the above noted fact and calculation at the time of final decision of this proceeding for fair ends of justice.'

7. Further, the claimant-appellant himself in his examination-in-chief particularly in paragraph 4 of the sam