Additional compensation for acquired fruit-bearing trees is payable where evidence establishes their existence.

The State acquired lands at Amrapur for the Vrujmi Reservoir Scheme. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 10 September 1981, followed by a Section 6 declaration on 5 August 1982, and the Special Land Acquisition Officer made the award on 30 April 1983.

Dissatisfied landowners sought references under the Land Acquisition Act. By a common judgment dated 28 March 2006, the Reference Court awarded enhanced compensation for the acquired lands and additional compensation for fruit-bearing trees, including Rs.4,90,600 for trees standing on Survey Nos. 36/2 and 62/1, forming the subject matter of LRC No. 96 of 1999.

The State preferred First Appeal Nos. 523 to 529 of 2009. The Division Bench denied compensation for the trees. The heirs of Sagar Haraji Naja challenged that decision before the Supreme Court. By order dated 22 August 2014, the Supreme Court remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration of whether additional compensation should be awarded for the fruit-bearing trees, observing that the Division Bench had not adequately discussed the evidence.

On remand, the present appeal concerned the award of Rs.4,90,600 for trees on Survey Nos. 36/2 and 62/1.

Whether the landowners proved the existence of fruit-bearing trees on Survey Nos. 36/2 and 62/1 so as to justify additional compensation

Whether the Reference Court correctly awarded Rs.4,90,600 as additional compensation for those fruit-bearing trees

The Court applied the compensation principles under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, including the entitlement of persons interested in acquired land to compensation for components of the property taken, such as standing fruit-bearing trees.

The acquisition proceedings were governed by Sections 4 and 6 of the Act.

The Court also applied the Supreme Court’s remand order dated 22 August 2014, which required an independent and proper consideration of the evidence relating to the trees and held that denial of compensation could not rest on an unexplained finding that the evidence was insufficient.

The assessment of compensation was required to be based on the evidence regarding the existence, productivity, age and value of the trees.

The State contended that the landowners had not produced sufficient evidence establishing the existence of fruit-bearing trees on the relevant survey lands.

However, the State’s own witnesses supplied material evidence. DW-1 admitted that three gunda trees and three mango trees stood on Survey No. 62/1, although he denied the existence of other trees.

More significantly, DW-2, an Assistant Engineer, testified that several acquired lands at Amrapur contained fruit gardens, predominantly Kesar mango trees, and gave evidence regarding the productivity, market rates, life expectancy and maintenance of various fruit-bearing trees in or around the acquisition year.

The Court also noted that, when specifically asked to identify the evidence allegedly insufficient to support the award, the learned Government Pleader could not point to any such evidence.

In light of the Supreme Court’s direction that the evidence be properly examined, the Court found no justification for interfering with the Reference Court’s assessment of compensation for the trees.

The High Court upheld the Reference Court’s judgment and award dated 28 March 2006 insofar as it granted Rs.4,90,600 as additional compensation for the fruit-bearing trees standing on Survey Nos. 36/2 and 62/1.

At the time of disbursement, the Reference Court was directed to verify the identity and entitlement of the claimants and thereafter pass an appropriate disbursement order.

The Court clarified that the decision was based on the peculiar facts and circumstances and would not operate as a precedent.