RFA No. 256 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 256 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 9.8.2010 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant v. Kaka Singh .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Jaishree Thakur, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. P. C.Dhiman, Advocate for the respondent. ... Rajesh Bindal J. The Union Territory, Chandigarh has filed the present appeal seeking reduction in the compensation granted for the fruit bearing trees standing on the acquired land. Briefly, the facts are that the land in village Sarangpur (Chandigarh) was acquired vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') on 1.1.2001, for the development of complex for important projects in village Sarangpur, Chandigarh. The Land Acquisition Collector determined the compensation payable for the superstructures and the fruit/non-fruit bearing trees existing on the acquired land vide his award dated 27.12.2002. Aggrieved against the award, the landowners filed objections, which were referred to the learned Reference Court, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, partly accepted the same by granting increase in compensation for the superstructure and 340% increase in the value of the fruit bearing trees. It is this award which is challenged before this Court. Challenge in the present appeal is only with regard to grant of 340% increase in the value of fruit bearing trees. It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned court below had wrongly granted increase @ 340%. The submission was that the price index in the year 1985 was 127.2, which increased to 468 in the year 2001. The learned court below has committed an error in awarding the difference in the price index, whereas what had to be awarded was the percentage increase from 127.2 to 468, which will come out to 268% and not 340%. RFA No. 256 of 2010 [2] On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent though not disputing the proposition sought to be addressed by learned counsel for the appellant in principle, submitted that the amount involved being small and the land owner having already been paid that amount, this court should not interfere in the impugned award at this stage. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. The learned court below had granted increase @ 340% on the value of the fruit bearing trees existing on the acquired land. The whole sale price index in the year 1985 was 127.2 which increased to 468 in the year 2001. The learned court below granted increase of 340% on the value of fruit bearing trees as assessed in terms of valuation in the year 1985. If increase @ 340% is granted on 127.2, the same would come out to 559.68, whereas the price index in the year 2001 was 468. It is not the difference between the price index which is to be considered as increase to be granted. It has to be the percentage to bring it to the level of price index in the year of acquisition which in the present case would be after adding 268% on 127.2. Accordingly, the award of the learned court below is modified and the landowner is granted increase @ 268% instead of 340%. The impugned award of the learned court below is modified to the extent mentioned above. The appeal stands disposed of. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 9.8.2010 mk