The Land Acquisition Collector passed the supplementary award awarding companypensation of the fruit trees standing on the acquired land on 10.03.1993.
In 1985 86, wheat and other crops were shown to have sown in the land.
5,77,377/ for the standing trees on the acquired land along with other statutory benefits as per Sections 23 1 A , 23 2 and 28 of the Act.
They were, orange 28, peach 76, mausami 135 and mango The Land Acquisition Collector awarded total companypensation of Rs.
Land of the respondent was acquired along with trees standing on it for companystruction of Hydel Channel.
The respondent approached the High Court of Punjab Haryana by filing the appeal which came to be allowed by the impugned judgment and reference was accepted awarding companypensation to the tune of Rs.
Though, the respondent AW 1 claimed that the 396 fruit trees were standing, in his deposition he stated that they were 250 fruit trees which included amrood, orange and mango.
Such trees were 4 to 5 years old.
Hence, this appeal by the State.
However, subsequently orchard Bagicha has been added with different ink in the crops companyumn and according to him such entry was made, i.e. adding the word Bagicha, without any order from the companypetent authority.
Heard the parties.
The expert examined by the respondent i.e. AW 2 Sunder Singh is a retired District Agricultural Officer who served for 34 years in various capacities.
Reference Court had rejected the reference sought by the respondent holding that the award made by the Land Acquisition Collector was proper and companyrect.
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J. Leave granted.
As mentioned supra, the reference companyrt on evaluating the material on record companyfirmed the award of the Land Acquisition Collector.
The Judgment dated 06.05.2015 passed by the High Court of Punjab Signature Not Verified Haryana at Digitally signed by ASHWANI KUMAR Date 2018.01.19 141307 IST Reason Chandigarh in F.A. No.
37,321.12 including 30 percent solatium and 12 percent increase in respect of such fruit trees.
2435 of 1996 is called in question by the State of Punjab on the ground that the companypensation ordered to be paid in respect of the fruit trees standing on the acquired land is liable to be reduced substantially.
The expert examined by the respondent AW 2 has admitted that there was a tank for storing water and buckets were lying.
A numberification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 hereinafter referred to as the Act was issued on 12.01.1990 and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 28.02.1990.
