R. F. A No. 147 of 1993 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R. F. A No. 147 of 1993 (O&M) Date of decision : 8.3.2010 Bhup Singh and another ..... Appellants vs The Land Acquisition Collector and another ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. B. B. S. Teji, Advocate, for the respondents. Rajesh Bindal J. The landowners are in appeal against the award dated 5.10.1992 passed by the learned court below seeking enhancement of compensation for the superstructures, tubewell and fruit bearing trees standing on the acquired land. Briefly, the facts are that the State of Punjab acquired the land within the revenue estate of Village Saini Majra, Tehsil and District Ropar vide notification dated 26.11.1982 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), for construction of Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation for the tubewell and the trees vide award dated 16.7.1987. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 5.10.1992, allowed the reference with regard to trees but dismissed the same with regard to well and tubewell. It is this award which is impugned in the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in support of their claim, the appellant had produced on record sufficient evidence in the form of oral as well as documentary but the learned court below has not appreciated the same. The appellants produced on record, report Ex. P-1 and evaluation report, Ex. P-2, prepared by PW1 Jasbir Singh, retired Deputy Director Horticulture, Punjab. The same was ignored by the court below R. F. A No. 147 of 1993 2 while assessing the compensation. It was further submitted that the appellants had also proved on record report, Ex. P3 prepared by deceased Sital Singh. He prayed that the appellants deserve further enhancement of compensation. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that sufficient amount has already been awarded to the appellants by the learned court below. He submitted that the court below has rightly discarded the deposition of PW1 Jasbir Singh as he prepared his report on the basis of rough notes which he had not been produced on record whereas the respondents produced RW2 Baldev Singh, Horticulture Development Officer, who prepared his report on the basis of Dr. Nijjar's formula. He submitted that fair amount has been awarded to the landowners and the same does not call for any further increase. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper- book. A perusal of the impugned award shows that RW2 Baldev Singh, who visited the land under reference on 15.12.1983, found 3 mango and 42 Guava trees. RW2 Baldev Singh had assessed the compensation for the fruit bearing trees @ Rs. 16,169. 25 paise according to Dr. Nijjar's formula which has been judicially accepted in number of cases. Once this fact was admitted that the estimate prepared for the trees was in terms of Dr. Nijjar's formula, which was accepted as such, I do not find any illegality in the impugned award as far as the assessment of value of the fruit bearing trees is concerned. As far as the value of the well and tubewell is concerned, the report, Ex. P3, prepared by Sital Singh has not been proved on record. His son PW3 Jaswinder Singh, had simply identified the signatures and writing of his father on the report. He had no knowledge about the construction and therefore, the court below has rightly discarded his testimony. No other point was raised by either of the parties. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 8.3.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge