RFA No. 2747 of 2002 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision : 9.3.2010 1. RFA No. 2747 of 2002 (O&M) Mangat Ram ..... Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 2. RFA No. 2748 of 2002 (O&M) Surinder Kaur ..... Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 3. RFA No. 591 of 2004 (O&M) Smt. Surinder Kaur ..... Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 4. RFA No. 592 of 2004 (O&M) Malkiat Singh ..... Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 5. RFA No. 593 of 2004 (O&M) Vishnu Sharma ..... Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 6. RFA No. 2802 of 2008 (O&M) Bikram Singh ..... Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 7. RFA No. 2302 of 2009 (O&M) Jaspal Singh ..... Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. P. C. Dhiman, Advocate, for the appellants. Mrs. Lisa Gill, Advocate, for Union Territory, Chandigarh. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of the aforesaid appeals, as the same arise out of common acquisition. RFA No. 2747 of 2002 2 The landowners have filed the aforesaid appeals before this court against the award of the learned court below passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') seeking enhancement of compensation for the superstructure and fruit bearing trees standing on the acquired land. The facts have been extracted from RFA. No. 2747 of 2002. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Union Territory, Chandigarh, vide notification dated 3.7.1997 issued under Section 4 of the Act, acquired land of Villages Nizampur Kumbra and Nizampur Burail, UT Chandigarh, for development of Sector-51, Chandigarh. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation to the landowners for superstructures and fruit/ non-fruit bearing trees standing on the acquired land. Aggrieved against the award, the landowners filed objections which were referred to the learned Court below, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, accepted the same by granting increase of 25% on the compensation on account of acquisition of superstructure as was assessed at PWD rates and increase of 162% for the fruit bearing trees by applying Dr. Nijjar's formula. Since the learned court below had already granted increase on the compensation for acquisition of superstructures and fruit bearing trees which is admittedly in conformity with judgment of this court in RFA No. 727 of 2001 Narinder Singh vs Union Territory, Chandigarh, decided on 4.2.2009 no case for further increase is made out. The appeal are, accordingly, dismissed. 9.3.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge