RFA No. 2435 of 1990 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 2435 of 1990 Date of decision: May 15 ,2009 Ganga Singh ... Appellant Vs. The State of Punjab and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondents. Rajesh Bindal J. The land owner is in appeal 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 in compensation for superstructure and trees existing on the acquired land. Briefly, the facts of the case are that land along with superstructure and trees belonging to the appellant was acquired by the State of Punjab. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the value of the structures consisting of house and tubewell at Rs. 65,467/- and that of the trees at Rs. 6,677.31. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the claimant filed objections, which were referred to learned Additional District Judge, Ropar. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below upheld the award of the Collector. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that fair amount of compensation has not been assessed by the learned court below, as it had merely upheld the award of the Collector pertaining to the superstructure and the trees as well. The evidence produced on record has been totally ignored. Reliance was placed upon Ranjit Singh v. The Union Territory of Chandigarh, 1983 PLJ 290 and Gokal Chand alias Gokal Singh and another v. State of Punjab, 1989 LACC 487. RFA No. 2435 of 1990 [2] On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that it was practically a case of no evidence as nothing was produced on record by the land owner to justify any increase in the amount of compensation for acquisition of superstructure and trees standing on the acquired land. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. A perusal of the impugned award shows that the learned court below had not committed any illegality in upholding the award of the Collector as far as the amount of compensation on account of superstructure and the trees is concerned. Though in the claim petition, the appellant claimed Rs. 1,70,000/- as compensation on account of superstructure, however, in the evidence led, the value shown was merely Rs. 65,907/-, which was quite close to the award of the Collector, who assessed the compensation therefor at Rs. 55,588/-. The difference was rightly ignored, as there was difference of about 2-1/2 years between inspection and the report. Similar was the position with regard to the value of tubewell, where exhorbitant claim of Rs. 60,000/- was made. The evidence led was only to the extent of Rs. 20,231/-, whereas the award of the Collector was Rs. 9,879/- in which also, there was a gap of 2-1/2 years in inspection and preparation of report. The credibility of the evidence is also weakened once initially exhorbitant claim is made and in the evidence led, the same is not matched. As far as value of trees is concerned, categoric finding is that the appellant did not adduce any evidence. The State had produced Baldev Singh-RW2, who produced his report Ex. R5 assessing the value of trees at Rs. 5,897.90. There were 10 Gauva, one Anar, 4 Orange, 10 Lemon, 10 Papita, one Ber, one Shisham and one Dek trees. The judgments, referred to by learned counsel for the appellant, are also of no help to him as in Ranjit Singh's case (supra), increase @ 100% was granted, considering difference in the price index. In the present case, no material has been placed on record by the land owner to show that value assessed is not correct. Even the number of trees is also not very large, as mentioned above. There is always some rough estimation. In the absence of any positive evidence to hold that the assessment as was made by the Collector was not just and fair, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 15.5.2009 mk