RFA No. 2572 of 2002 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh RFA No. 2572 of 2002 (O&M) Date of decision : 28.9.2010 Sucha Singh ..... Appellant vs State of Punjab ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Naresh Kaushal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. The landowner has filed the present appeal against the award of the learned court below passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') seeking further enhancement of compensation for the fruit bearing trees standing on the acquired land. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the State of Punjab vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, acquired land along with trees standing thereon situated in Village Sohana, District Ropar, for industrial purpose. The Land Acquisition Collector announced the supplementary award for the fruit bearing trees. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowner filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below granted @ 60% increase on the value of the trees, as was assessed by the Collector as per Dr. Nijjar's formula,. It is this award which is impugned by the landowner. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though the court below had relied upon Dr. Nijjar's formula while assessing the market value of the acquired trees but the increase as per price index was not granted for time gap from 1985 till the acquisition in 1993. According to the impugned award itself the price index in the year 1985 was 127.2. The acquisition in the present case was carried out in the year 1993. The price index in the year 1993 arose to 242.4. However, the learned court below though finding that the increase in the price index during the intervening period was to the tune of 90% but still enhancement only to the extent of 60% was granted. The submission is that the landowner is entitled to increase to the extent of increase in the price index. On the other hand, learned State counsel while not disputing the factual position submitted that fair assessment has been made by the learned court below which does not call for any interference. RFA No. 2572 of 2002 (2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book. As far as the claim regarding compensation for the fruit bearing trees is concerned, I find merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. The facts about the price index have not been disputed by either of the parties. It is also not in dispute that the court below had relied upon Dr. Nijjar's formula. But while granting the increase as per price index, the court below had wrongly assessed the same at 60%. In the year 1985 the price index was 127.2 which arose to 242.4 in the year 1993 in which the acquisition took place. The difference of increase was 90% but the court below had granted increase only @ 60% which is factually incorrect. Considering the difference in price index, the increase comes to 90% from the year 1985 to 1993. Accordingly, the award of the learned court below is modified to the extent that the appellant shall be entitled to increase @ 90% as against 60% granted by the court below. He shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available under the Act. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. 28.9.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge