V.K. Ahuja, J.
1. These are the regular first appeals filed by the appellant/State of H.P. under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the award, dated 5.8.2002, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Shimla in Land Reference Nos. 39-S/4 of 1999, 40-S/4 of 1999, 41-S/4 of 1999, 42-S/4 of 1999, 43-S/4 of 1999, 44-S/4 of 1999 and 45-S/4 of 1999, vide which the trial court awarded enhance compensation in the following manner:
Sl. Name of Amount Number Multiplier compensationNo. the case awarded of applied awardedper box boxes1. Mathi Devi Rs. 150/- 80 8 Rs. 96,0002. Gopal Rs. 150/- 54 8 Rs. 64,800Singh3. Bhagat Ram Rs. 150/- 60 8 Rs. 72,0004. Chander Rs. 150/- 200 8 Rs. 2,40,000Mohan5. Amolak Ram Rs. 150/- 150 8 Rs. 1,80,0006. Daulat Ram Rs. 150/- 250 8 Rs. 3,00,0007. Gian Singh Rs. 150/- 110 8 Rs. 1,32,000Justa
2. Briefly stated the allegations made by the appellant are that the appellant/State acquired the land of the respondents for the construction of Breon Link Road. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 11.4.1996 and the same was published in Himachal Pradesh Rajpatra on 18.5.1996. The Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as the Collector) announced the award on 6.4.1998. The Collector also observed that the compensation of the fruit bearing and non-fruit bearing trees shall be paid lateron through a supplementary award on the receipt of their evaluation report from the concerned quarters to whom requisite list of such trees has been sent. It was alleged further that the respondents did not wait for announcement of the supplementary award of the Collector but filed reference petitions before the learned District Judge for determination of compensation in respect of fruit bearing trees. It was alleged that the learned Additional District Judge, vide its impugned award, granted compensation in respect of fruit bearing trees also, which was not granted by the Collector since the same was to be given by the Collector by way of supplementary award on receipt of evaluation report from the quarters concerned. Thus, it was alleged that the learned Additional District Judge has traveled beyond his jurisdiction and granted compensation based on presumptions by assessing the yield from apple trees.
3. It was further alleged that the learned trial Court instead of remanding the reference back to the Collector to announce the supplementary award for compensation of fruit bearing trees, granted the compensation in respect of fruit bearing trees also, which findings are incorrect. Hence the present appeals filed by the appellant/State of H.P.
4. Record of the case was summoned. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.
5. The submissions made by the learned Assistant Advocate General were in support of the grounds taken in the appeal, as mentioned above. The learned Assistant Advocate General submitted that there was no jurisdiction of the reference Court to determine the compensation for trees which had not been originally determined by the Collector, which was yet to be determined by him by way of supplementary award. Thus, it was submitted that the learned Additional District Judge had given its findings in regard to fruit bearing trees also and had traveled beyond his jurisdiction and given findings on a matter which was never referred to before him by the Collector in the reference petitions.
6. To support his submissions, the learned Assistant Advocate General has placed reliance upon the decision in State of H.P. and Ors. v. Atma Ram and Ors. 2007 (Suppl.)Cur.L.J.(H.P.), 392. In that case, the compensation was awarded by the learned District Judge on the basis of Harbans Singh formula on account of the increase in price index. No award was passed by the Collector in respect of fruit bearing trees in the present case and the Harbans Singh Formula has not been adopted by the Court but the court has granted compensation on yield basis as per the decision of the apex court and, therefore, this decision is not attracted to the present facts.
7. Another decision relied upon by the learned Assistant Advocate General is in Assistant Commissioner- cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Bellary v. S.T. Pompanna Setty : AIR2005SC749 . In that case, the compensation was awarded on yield basis. The multiplier of 15 applied to was held to be on the higher side and the multiplier of 10 was considered to be proper and appropriate, which rather gives support to the findings given by the learned trial Court.
8. Learned Assistant Advocate General has also relied upon the decision in State of J. & K. v. Mohammad Mateen Wani and Ors. : AIR1998SC2470 . In that case, a reference was made to a circular issued by the Government of J&K; and made observation that separate compensation for fruit bearing trees and tube well was payable in view of the circular issued by the government of J&K.; In the present case also, the learned Assistant Advocate General had filed a circular issued by the State Government in the form of Standing Order. A copy of the said Standing Order does not show that it was published in the Rajpatra, who had issued the same and it is simply a copy of the Standing Order laying down as to how the compensation is to be calculated and how the award is to be drawn up. It does not show who had issued these orders and whether the same were published or not. Therefore, the copy of the Standing Order placed on the record, which is Annexure A-1, is not relevant at all for deciding the present controversy.
9. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the Collector was bound to pass the award within two years of the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act and he had no jurisdiction to give time or give the award beyond that period. Once he had passed the award within that period and had no jurisdiction to extend the period as prescribed by law and since there was no provision for filing of any supplementary award, the order passed by the Collector shall be deemed to have been passed holding that he had declined to pass the award in regard to fruit bearing trees. Therefore, once he had declined to pass such an award, the learned District Judge was within his rights to answer the references to have been made in regard to the land as well as for fruit bearing trees for which the claimants preferred reference petition before him. Therefore, the impugned judgment calls for no interference by this Court. It was also submitted that the procedure adopted by the learned trial Court in assessing the compensation on yield basis is as per the decision of the Apex Court and as such, it calls for no interference by this Court.
10. The learned Counsel for the respondents had placed reliance upon the decision in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Sharan Pal Singh and Ors. : (1996)11SCC683 . In that case, the award was made within the specified time fixing compensation for land but no compensation was fixed for superstructures and trees. It was held that the award must be construed as the whole award under Section 11 awarding compensation for land with no compensation for superstructures and trees. However, it was held that the claimants were entitled to seek reference under Section 18 and claim compensation for the superstructures and trees treating the award as one not awarding any compensation for superstructures and trees. This applies to the facts of the present case.
11. The facts of the case are very clear that the Notification under Section 4 was issued on 11.4.1996. The same was published on 18.5.1996 and the award was passed on 6.4.1998. According to the provisions of Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the inquiry was required to be conducted by the Collector and he was to announce the award accordingly. Section 11-A of the said Act reads as under:
11A. Period within which an award shall be made.- The Collector shall make an award under Section 11 within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse :
Provided that in a case where the said declaration has been published before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, the award shall be made within a period of two years from such commencement. Explanation. - In computing the period of two years referred to in this section, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the said declaration is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded.
12. The legislator in its wisdom has prescribed a period of two years for passing an award by the Collector and that period has to be reckoned from the date of the publication of the notification. According to the dates mentioned above, since the publication of the Notification took place on 18.5.1996, the Collector was required to pass the award on or before 18.5.1998. Section 11-A of the Act does not prescribe that this period can be extended and rather it clearly provides that in case no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse. However, according to the explanation, in case the proceedings are stayed by the order of a Court, that period can be excluded, which is not the case here.
13. Thus, it follows from the above discussion that the award was required to be passed on or before 18.5.1998 and the Collector had passed the award on 6.4.1998. According to the order passed by him, he observed that the supplementary award will be passed subsequently in regard to the fruit bearing trees on receipt of the report of the expert, but he had only a period of more than a month to pass such award. He never passed such an award before the reference petitions were filed by the petitioners before the learned trial Court in the month of June, 1999. Thus, it is clear that the Collector, by his conduct, had rather refused to pass the award for fruit bearing trees within the time allowed by the Act and it leads to the inference that he had declined to pass an award separately for fruit bearing trees and, therefore, the petitioners were within their rights to apply before the learned District Judge for the grant of compensation for the land as well as for fruit bearing trees. There is no provision for passing a supplementary award and in case the Collector declined to pass any award for the fruit bearing trees on this plea that he will pass a supplementary award, I am of the opinion that an inference can be drawn that he has declined to pass any award. In my view, in case the period of two years had not lapsed, when the learned District Judge was considering the reference petitions, the learned District Judge could have remanded the case to the Collector for passing a complete award including for fruit bearing trees. Once that period was over when the reference petition was pending before the learned District Judge, he had no jurisdiction to remand the case to the Collector for determination of compensation for fruit bearing trees and, therefore, the consideration of the reference petition by the learned trial Court including the amount for fruit bearing trees, as has been done in the present case, can be said to be in accordance with law.
14. The next question which arises for consideration is in regard to the method adopted by the learned District Judge in assessing the compensation for the land having fruit bearing trees. The learned District Judge had referred to the decision of the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. : [1995]1SCR408 , wherein it has been held by the Apex Court that no separate compensation can be awarded for the land and fruit bearing trees. The compensation is for value of acquired land and land includes benefits to arise from the land. It was further held that in such a case where the land was having trees and the agricultural land, the suitable multiplier to be applied was 8 for the land with fruit bearing trees and in case of agricultural land, the multiplier to be applied was 12 on yield basis. No such case law has been cited to show that the compensation in regard to the land having fruit bearing trees cannot be on the basis of yield and that the multiplier of 8 could not have been applied by the court below. Therefore, it is clear that the learned District Judge referred to the evidence, which showed that the apple boxes had been sold and according to the evidence, it had been sold for the amount ranging from Rs. 150/- to Rs. 340/- per box and the learned District Judge had taken the value as Rs. 150/- per box, which was not challenged by the learned Counsel for the respondents. On the basis of the evidence and discussion, the learned District Judge had rightly assessed the value of the apple box at Rs. 150/- and applying the multiplier of 8, as applied by the Apex Court, the compensation has been determined rightly by the learned District Judge in each case keeping in view the evidence in regard to the apple boxes, as discussed in para 34 of the judgment by the learned District Judge.
15. To my mind, the compensation awarded on this basis cannot be said to be incorrect and it calls for no interference. No submissions have been made in regard to the other solatium etc. granted by the Court and as such the respondents shall be entitled to the compensation as determined by the learned trial Court.
16. In view of the above discussion, all the petitions are dismissed with costs.