1 Whether approved for reporting?

Sushil Kukreja, Judge

1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants, who were the respondents before the learned Court below, against award dated 02.06.2018, passed by learned Additional District Judge (CBI), Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Reference Court”), in Land Reference RBT No. 8-S/4 of 2017/13, whereby the petition filed by the petitioners/claimants, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short “the Act”) was partly allowed and they were held entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,41,360/- (Rs. 17,670/- X 8), being value of 8 apple trees, alongwith other benefits, as permissible under the statute.

2. The brief facts of the case are that land comprised in Khasra No. 105, measuring 00-00-94 hectares, Khasra No. 101, measuring 00-07-65 hectares and Khasra No. 104, measuring 00-02-41, total measuring 00-11-00 hectares, situated at Village Dhali, Tehsil Kotkhai, District Shimla, H.P., has been utilized by the respondents for public purpose, i.e. for construction of ‘Dhali-Dhakal’ link road vide Notification under Section 4, dated January 4, 2010 and the award whereof has been passed by Land Acquisition Collector, HPPWD, South Zone, Winter Field, Shimla, on July 3, 2012, vide award No. 70/2012.

3. The petitioners/claimants, feeling aggrieved with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector preferred a petition under Section 18 of the Act before the learned Reference Court for enhancement of the compensation mainly on the ground that their land and apple orchard have not been adequately compensated.

4. The learned Reference Court, partly allowed the petition of the claimants and they were held entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,41,360/- (Rs. 17,670/- X 8), being value of 8 apple trees, alongwith other benefits, as permissible under the statute. Hence, the appellants/State preferred the instant petition under Section 54 of the Act with a prayer to quash and set aside the impugned award, passed by the leaned Reference Court.

5. I have heard the learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellants/State, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents and also carefully examined the records.

6. Learned Deputy Advocate contended that the learned Reference Court had wrongly appreciated the material on record and wrongly placed reliance upon Ext. PW-2/A and Ext. PW-2/B, i.e. assessment reports of the expert, whereby compensation of 8 apple trees has been assessed to the tune of Rs. 1,41,360/-. He further contended that learned Reference Court had wrongly relied upon document Ext. PW-1/G and ignored the statement of RW-1 and copy of award, according to which, no trees were existing on the road. Therefore, he submitted that the appeal be allowed and impugned award dated 02.06.2018 passed by the learned Reference Court be set-aside.

7. Conversely, learned Senior Counsel for respondents contended that the learned Reference Court had rightly held the petitioners entitled for enhanced compensation, hence, the awarded amount of compensation is just and fair and necessitates no interference. Lastly, he prayed for dismissal of the instant appeal.

8. It is admitted case of the respondents that land of the petitioners was acquired for construction of Dhali-Dhakal link road vide Notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 04.01.2010. Feeling aggrieved with the award of Collector, the petitioners had filed reference petition under Section 18 of the Act before the learned Reference Court for enhancement of the compensation with respect to their fruit bearing apple plants only on the acquired land alongwith all statutory benefits.

9. In order to prove his case, one of the petitioners namely Jai Dev himself has appeared in the witness box as PW-3 and has also examined Dr. S.P. Bhardwaj, as an expert, who appeared in the witness box as PW-2 and tendered in evidence his reports Ext. P