LexJOGINDER SINGH SAINI ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
JOGINDER SINGH SAINI ETC. ETC. v. A .\.. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR . FEBRUARY 16, 1990 [B.C. RAY AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] B __ ) Land Acquisition Act, 1894: S. 23-Nursery plants existing on land at time of acquisition-Whether entitled to compensation-Valua- lion of mother trees as wood-Validity of · The appellants' land was acquired under the Land Acquisition c Act on March 24, 1971 for planned development as residential area. They were then running a plant nursery on the said land. A large number of potted plants, mother plants and trees also existed there. They demanded compensation for the land at the rate of Rs.35 per sq. yd. They also claimed compensation for nursery plants, potted plants mother plants and trees. D The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation in respect of the land at the rate of Rs.900 per Biswa. He held that the mother plants and trees were irremovable and as such assessed the value A. thereof at Rs.2,41,576. He also awarded charges for the shifting of ,. potted plants. In respect of the nursery plants he took the view that the E appellants were not entitled to any compensation as these could be removed from the land and sold. a The District Judge enhanced the rate of compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs.10 per sq. yd. and also doubled the compensation for trees and mother plants. F i The High Court considering the potentiality of the acquired land fixed its value at the rate of Rs.16 per sq. yd. It took the view that the court below was in error in doubling the value of the trees as no case was made out in the evidence recorded and therefore set aside the enhancement. G In these appeals by special leave it was contended for the appel- i !ants that the nursery plants if taken out of the land would die after two-three days and the appellants had got no other land where they could plant them and keep them alive. It was further contended that the co"!pensation with regard to mother trees had been awarded with- H 417 418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 1 S.C.R. A out reference to their market price ana that the High Court had arbitrarily rejected the enhancement in the said compensation granted by the District Court. B c Dismissing the appeals, the Court, HELD: I. The flndillll ofthe Land Acquisition Collector that the nursery plants could be taken out of the land and sold to the customers like potted plants and as such no compensation could be awarded was quite in accordance with law. Sufficient time had been granted by the State by permitting the appellants to remove these plants from the acquired land. Their claim was, therefore, rightly rejected by the High Court. [422G-H, D-E] 2. The land acquired though agricultutal land was taken for assessment of Its market value @ Rs.16 p~r sq, yd. nqt as agricultural land but as land with hillh potentlAlltles, I.e. u .. urban land. fhe appel- lants did not at all dispute this value. 011 tbe other band they withdrew o the entire compebS8tion award for tlie value of these lands. ln these circumstances, it could not be said that the value of mother trees has been wrongly assessed as wood. Tbe appellants were, therefore, not entitled to enhancement Ill the Talue of tteu. [ 4J2F -G J CIVIL APPELLATE JURlSDICI'ION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1274 ~. E to 1278 of 1984. F From the Judgment and Order dated 27.S,81 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in R.F .A. Nos. 688 to 692 of 1979. -- Rajinder Sachar and K.C. Dua for the Appellants. S.P. Goel, Rana Ranjit Singh and Mahabir Singh for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G RAY, J. These appeals on special leave are directed against the judgment and order dated May 27, 1981 passed in R.F.A. Nos. 688 to 692 of 1979 and 1112 of 1979 by the High Courtof Punjab and,Haryana at Chandigarh. The short question raised in these appeals is whether r the appellants are entitled to any compensation for nursery plants exist· ing on the land at the time of acquisition as·-well ·as at the- time of H notification published under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, JOGINDER v. STATE OF HARYANA (RAY, J.I 419 1894. Secondly, whether the valuation made in respect of the mo-ther A plants is low and the same needs to be increased in accordance with the report of the Horticulture Expert. The facts of these appeals in short, are as follows. A notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 B
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.