http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: JOGINDER SINGH SAINI ETC. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT16/02/1990

BENCH: RAY, B.C. (J) BENCH: RAY, B.C. (J) RAMASWAMY, K.

CITATION:  1990 AIR 1219            1990 SCR  (1) 417  1990 SCC  (3) 276        JT 1990 (1)   232  1990 SCALE  (1)204

ACT:     Land  ’Acquisition  Act,  1894:  S.  23--Nursery  plants existing on land at time of acquisition--Whether entitled to compensation--Valuation  of mother trees  as  wood--Validity of.

HEADNOTE:     The appellants’ land was acquired under the Land  Acqui- sition  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 compensa- tion 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.     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 thereof at  Rs.2,41,576.  He  also awarded  charges for the shifting of potted plants.  In  re- spect of the nursery plants he took the view that the appel- lants  were not entitled to any compensation as these  could be removed from the land and sold.     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.     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  enhance- ment.     In  these appeals by special leave it was contended  for the  appellants 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 compensation  with regard to mother trees had been awarded with- 418 out reference to their market price and that the High  Court had arbitrarily rejected the enhancement in the said compen-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

sation granted by the District Court. Dismissing the appeals, the Court,     HELD:  1. The finding of the 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  per- mitting  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 agricultural land was taken. for assessment of its market value @ Rs. 16 per sq. yd.  not as  agricultural laud but as laud with  high  potentialities i.e.  as urban laud. The appellants did not at  all  dispute this  value.  On  the other hand they  withdrew  the  entire compensation  award for the value of these lands.  In  these circumstances, it could not be said that the value of mother trees  has  been wrongly assessed as  wood.  The  appellants were, therefore, not entitled to enhancement In the value of trees. [422F-G]

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1274  to 1278 of 1984.     From the Judgment and Order dated 27.5.81 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     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 592 of 1979 and 1112 of 1979 by the  High Court  of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The short  ques- tion  raised in these appeals is whether the appellants  are entitled to any compensation ’for nursery plants existing on the  land at the time of acquisition as well as at  the-time of notification published under Section 4 of the Land Acqui- sition Act, 419 1894. Secondly, whether the valuation made in respect of the mother  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 was published on March 24, 1971 for acquisition of the lands in question in village Faridabad, Hadbust No. 123, Tehsil  Ballabgarh,  District Gurgaon for a  public  purpose viz. for planned development of residential sector No. 19 by the  Haryana  Government. Thereafter,  a  declaration  under Section  6 of the said Act was published  vide  Notification No.  LAC-71/NTLA/376 dated January 18, 1972 in Haryana  Gov- ernment Extraordinary Gazette. The Government declared  that the  Government was satisfied that the said land was  needed at  public  expenses  for a public purpose  namely  for  the planned  development in the area of this village  Faridabad. Thereafter a notice under Section 9 and 10 was issued  call- ing  upon  the owners and other interested persons  to  file their claims in respect of the interest in the land and also other  particulars as regards their claims for  compensation for  such interest. The owners of the land and other  inter- ested persons filed their claims demanding compensation  for the  land @ Rs.35 per sq. yd. and also claimed  compensation

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

for  the  nursery plants and potted plants in the  land  ac- quired. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded  compensation in respect of the land acquired @ Rs.900 per Biswa. The Land Acquisition Collector held that the mother plants and  trees were  irremovable and as such he assessed the value  thereof at Rs.2,41,576. He also awarded the shifting charges for the shifting  of potted plants amounting to Rs.  1,773.20  paise together with compulsory charges @ 15% of the amount  award- ed. This award was made by the Land Acquisition Collector on February  22, 1975. The possession of the acquired land  was taken by the Government. The Land Acquisition Collector also granted  six  months’  time or any such  further  period  as extended  by  the  Government to enable  the  appellants  to remove the nursery plants as well as the potted plants  from the acquired land. The Collector further stated in the award that the nursery plants can be removed from the land and the same be sold by the owners to the customers. So no compensa- tion  was awarded in respect of these plants as well  as  in respect of the potted plants.     The appellants filed five claim petitions being Petition Nos.  191/85 to 195/85 of 1973/78 in the Court of the  Addi- tional District Judge, Gurgaon. The 2nd Additional  District Judge, Gurgaon after hearing 420 the parties and also considering the evidences enhanced  the rate of compensation of the acquired land (C) Rs. 10 per sq. yd. It has also been held that the appellants will be  enti- tled  to  double the compensation for trees  and  plants  as given  by  the Land Acquisition Collector. He  also  ordered that  the  appellants shall be entitled to solatium  at  the rate of 15% on the enhanced amount of compensation on  these two items. In all other respects the impugned order made  by the  Land Acquisition Collector was upheld. He  further  or- dered that the appellants will be entitled to recover inter- est @ 6% from the date of compensation to the date of reali- zation  of  the enhanced amount to be paid to them  and  the appellants shall also be entitled to recover the proportion- ate costs of the petitions from the Government.     The  appellants filed R.F.A. Nos. 688 to 692 of 1979  in the  High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court  fixed the value of the acquired land considering the  potentiality of the land @ Rs. 16 per sq. yd. The total area of the  land acquired in these appeals being 11.38 acres, at the rate  of Rs.  16 per sq. yd. the value of the land acquired comes  to Rs.8.8  lakhs. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded a  sum of  Rs.2,41,576 for the trees, which value had been  doubled by  the  Court below. The High Court held that no  case  was made out for doubling the value of the trees in the evidence recorded before remand. It has been further observed by  the High  Court that the appellants’ own case was that  most  of their  income  was from potted plants, flowers  and  nursery plants,  the potted plants gave the maximum income,  as  was shown by the vouchers produced by the appellants on  record. The  potted  plants had been taken away  by  the  appellants after  acquisition.  Similar  was the  position  of  nursery plants.  The  High  Court, therefore, held  that  the  value awarded  by the Land Acquisition Collector would be for  the trees  and since no justification was made, the Court  below was  in error in doubling the value of the trees.  The  High Court,  therefore, valued the acquired land at the  enhanced rate  of Rs. 16 per sq. yd., for the trees the  compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector was directed to be paid  to the appellants and the enhancement awarded  in  re- spect  of  trees by the Court below was set  aside.  It  was further  ordered  that the appellants would be  entitled  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

solatium at the rate of 15 per cent and interest at the rate of  6% per annum from the date of taking of possession  till payment thereof. The appeals were thus disposed of.     Against  this judgment and decree passed in R.F.A.  Nos. 688 to 692 of 1979, the appellants filed five Special  Leave Petitions before this Court. On February 27, 1984 this Court granted Special Leave 421 confined  only  to the compensation for  mother  plants  and nursery plants.     Mr. Rajinder Sacbar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has made two-fold submissions before  this Court.  His  first submission is that the  Land  Acquisition Collector  as  well as the Courts below were  wrong  in  not granting  any compensation for the nursery  plants.  Nursery plants  were grown in the nursery on the acquired  land  for the purpose of rearing them for a certain period and  there- after  selling those plants to the customers on  taking  out the same from the nursery. There has been an inspection  and a  list was prepared of the various varieties of fruits  and flower  plants existing on the acquired land at the time  of acquisition.  He further submitted that the value  of  these various  plants has been assessed by Shri Som  Dutta  Diwan, Deputy  Director, Horticulture/Vegetable,  Haryana,  Chandi- garh, who was requested to assess the value of all sorts  of trees.  Copies of the assessment made by him had been  filed before the Land Acquisition Collector and it will be evident from  the said assessment lists that each variety  of  trees has  been  assessed separately with reference to  the  total number  of those trees. It has been submitted by Mr.  Sachar in this connection that these nursery plants if taken out of the land will die after two-three days. The appellants  have got  no other land where they could plant these  plants  and keep  them alive. It has, therefore, been submitted  by  him that  the  High Court was wrong in refusing  to  assess  the value  of  the nursery plants and to award  compensation  in respect  of  the same. Mr. Sachar next  submitted  that  the compensation awarded with regard to the mother trees by  the Land Acquisition Collector has been made arbitrarily without reference  to the market price of these trees. It  has  been further submitted by referring to the judgment and order  of the  2nd  Additional District Judge, Gurgaon  that  the  2nd Additional  District  Judge held that the.  appellants  were entitled to double the compensation under the head ’value of trees  and plants’ as assessed by the Land Acquisition  Col- lector. The High Court arbitrarily and wrongly rejected this on  the  mere  ground that there was  no  justification  for doubling the compensation as awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector in respect of the mother trees and plants. It has, therefore,  been submitted by Mr. Sachar that the amount  of compensation  awarded by the Land Acquisition  Collector  in respect  of the mother trees should be doubled and the  com- pensation for the nursery plants should also be assessed  on the  basis  of the value of the plants as  assessed  by  the Deputy Director of Horticulture. 422     Mr.  S.P.  Goel appearing for the respondent  State  has submitted  that  the  land acquired was not  treated  as  an agriculture land in assessing the market value of the  same. It has been taken as urban land and considering its potenti- alities, the High Court assessed the value of the land @ Rs. 16 per sq. yd. In such circumstances, the value of the  land being assessed on considering its potentiality, the question of  valuation of the mother trees as well as of the  nursery plants  does not at all arise. The valuation of  the  mother

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

trees  can at best be assessed at the value assessed by  the Land  Acquisition Collector. There is, therefore, no  ground for interference with the amount of compensation awarded  by the Land Acquisition Collector and upheld by the High Court. It  has been next submitted by the learned counsel  for  the State that the nursery plants are planted and grown for  the purpose  of selling the same to the customers  after  taking them  out  from  the land. These nursery  plants  are  never planted  for the purpose of growing them into big  trees  or mother plants. The High Court has rightly held that like the potted  plants  these nursery plants can easily  be  removed from  the nursery as the purpose of growing these plants  is to  sell  the  same to the customers. These  plants  can  be removed and sufficient time had been granted by the State by permitting  the appellants to remove these plants  from  the acquired  land. It has, therefore, been submitted  that  the High Court has rightly rejected the claim of the  appellants for compensation in respect of the nursery plants.     We  have considered in depth the arguments  advanced  by the  learned counsel for both the parties and we  have  also considered  very carefully the weighty reasonings  given  by the High Court as well as by the Land Acquisition Collector. It is obvious that the land acquired though agriculture land was taken for assessment of its market value not as agricul- ture land but as land with high potentialities i.e. as urban land  and,  therefore, the market value of these  lands  has been  fixed after considering its potential value @  Rs.  16 per sq. yd. The appellants did not at all dispute this value and on the other hand they withdrew the entire  compensation award for the value of these lands. In these  circumstances, we find that there is much substance in the submissions made on  behalf  of  the State that the mother  trees  should  be valued  as wood and the value has been rightly  assessed  as such by the Land Acquisition Collector in his award and  the same has been upheld by the High Court. Moreover, the  find- ings  of the Collector that the nursery plants can be  taken out of the land and sold to the customers like potted plants and as such no compensation can be awarded is in our consid- ered opinion quite in accordance with law. In these cir- 423 cumstances, we do not find any infirmity or arbitrariness in the findings arrived at by the High Court and as such  there is no merit in the contentions made on behalf of the  appel- lants  in these appeals. We, therefore, uphold the  findings of the High Court and dismiss the appeals without any costs. P.S.S                                          Appeals   dis- missed. 424