RFA No. 1346 of 1993 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision : 24.8.2010 1. RFA No. 1346 of 1993 (O&M) Harbax Singh and another ..... Appellants vs State of Punjab ..... Respondent 2. RFA No. 1368 of 1993 (O&M) State of Punjab ..... Appellant vs Harbax Singh and another .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: None for the claimants. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of the aforesaid appeals as the same arise out of common acquisition. The landowners have filed appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for the trees existing on the acquired land whereas by filing appeal the State is seeking reduction of compensation. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 13.9.1985 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), the State of Punjab acquired 49.62 acres of land along with structure and trees situated within the revenue estate of village Majat, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar, for construction of SYL Canal. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation of ` 63,598/- for the fruit bearing trees and ` 3,16,322.79 paise for non-fruit bearing trees. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the claimants filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the compensation for the 2600 eucalyptus trees at ` 13/- lacs considering the same @ ` 250/- for each eucalyptus tree and compensation for two crops @ ` 500/- was awarded. It is this award which is impugned in the present appeal. A perusal of the impugned award shows that the learned court below while assessing the compensation had granted compensation of eucalyptus tree for RFA No. 1346 of 1993 (2) two crops which is as per various judicial pronouncements of this court. Since the court below had granted benefit of two crops to the landowners as per binding judicial pronouncements, prima facie, no interference is called for. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the State is dismissed. As no one has appeared for the claimants, the appeal filed by them is dismissed in default. 24.8.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge