In Brief
The State of Punjab challenged a High Court judgment that awarded Rs 5,77,377 compensation for standing fruit trees on land acquired for a hydel channel. The Supreme Court found the High Court had overlooked critical evidence: expert testimony established only 90 trees fit per acre, yet the respondent claimed 250-396 trees on less than one acre of B-category land. The respondent also lacked a perennial water source, only using buckets. The court held the High Court failed to evaluate this inconsistent evidence properly and remitted the case for fresh consideration of compensation in light of horticultural planting standards and available irrigation.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.