Rajesh Bindal, J.@mdashThis order will dispose of a set of above mentioned two appeals, as common questions of law and facts are involved.
2. Dissatisfied with the impugned award, both the land owner as well as Union Territory, Chandigarh are in appeal, whereby on account of
compensation assessed for the trees standing on the acquired land, the learned court below had granted increase @ 160%.
3. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 3.10.1979, issued u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ''the Act''), land of Ujagar
Singh-claimant was acquired over which was existing an Orchard consisting of 1046 fruit trees. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, ''the
Collector'') awarded Rs. 1,27,533.16 as compensation for acquisition of the trees. Aggrieved against the same, the land owner filed objections
which were referred to the learned District Judge, Chandigarh, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, granted increase
@ 160% thereon.
4. Learned Counsel for the land owner submitted that for the time gap, the land owner was entitled to increase @ 200% as the price index in the
year 1966 was 144.3, which increased to 374 in the year 1979, when the land was acquired. There was a difference of 229.7 and the land owner
was entitled to increase to that extent on the value of trees, as was assessed by the Collector. He further submitted that even the quality of the trees
had not been properly assessed by the Collector. The evidence produced by him for that purpose had not been considered at all.
5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for Union Territory relying upon the price index 1970-71 stated that the same was 79.7 in the year 1966,
which increased to 206.5 in the year 1979, and the difference being 126.8, the land owner was not entitled to increase more than that rate and the
award of the learned court below granting increase @ 160% is totally uncalled for.
6. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. It is a case where, in my opinion, both the parties have unnecessarily filed appeals. Paragraph 7 of the impugned award deserves a reference,
which is as under:
In view of the report Ex. P.35 and the remand order of the Hon''ble High Court, learned Counsel for the claimant contended that the amount of
compensation already awarded to the claimant may be increased by 160%. The learned Government Pleader did not raise any cogent plea to
repel this contention of learned Counsel for the claimant. It was specifically observed in the remand order that after the publication of formula
1966, there was tremendous increase in the whole sale price index as published by the Govt. of India and 100% increase for the acquisition of fruit
trees was allowed in the year 1975. The trees in the present case were acquired in the year 1979 and so the claimant is entitled to the enhanced
compensation @ 160%, as deposed by his own witness. Issue No. 1 is decided accordingly.
8. A perusal of the aforesaid paragraph of the impugned award shows that the land owner claimed that he was entitled to increase by 160% on the
compensation already awarded by the Collector. To repel this argument, no cogent plea was raised by learned Government Pleader. The learned
court below in the impugned award had granted increase of compensation to the land owner to the extent of 160% on the value so assessed by the
Collector. Accordingly, the contention of both the parties that the compensation was not correct is totally misconceived.
9. Even the contention of learned Counsel for the land owner that difference in the price index being 229.7 if considered qua the years 1966 and
1979, as per the price index 1961-62, the entitlement shall increase to that extent, whereas the contention of learned Counsel for Union Territory is
that as per price index 1970-71, the difference being 126.8 from 1966 to 1979, the entitlement of the land owner was only to the extent of
126.8%, are totally misconceived. Increase @ 160% on the value of fruit bearing trees standing on the acquired land was granted for the reason
that the Collector had assessed the value thereof as per formula in 1966, the acquisition having been made in the year 1979, for the intervening
period the increase was to be granted as per the price index. By whatever price index, the same is considered-- may be 1961-62 or 1971-72, the
increase was 160%. If on 144.3, 160% is added, the same comes out to 375.18 and in case 160% is added on 79.7, the same comes out to
207.22, which is quite close to the price index, as has been referred to in the year 1979 as per both price indexes of 1961-62 and 1970-71.
10. For the reasons mentioned above, both the appeals are dismissed being without any merit.
