RFA No. 2382 of 1990 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 2382 of 1990 (O&M) Date of decision: April 27, 2009 Satpal .. Appellant Vs. Haryana State .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Ashish Bansal, Advocate for Mr. S. D. Bansal, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Ritu Bahri, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent. Rajesh Bindal J. The land owner is in appeal against the award of the learned court below, seeking further enhancement of compensation for the Safeda trees standing on the acquired land. Briefly, the facts are that the land of the appellant along with Safeda trees standing there was acquired for residential Sector 15 at Sonepat. The The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the value thereof at Rs. 40/- per tree. Aggrieved against the same, the land owner filed objections which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, assessed the same at Rs. 45/- per tree. The only contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned court below had failed to assess the value of Safeda trees standing on the acquired land as the appellant is entitled to get compensation for three crops as Safeda tree normally gives three crops. Reliance was placed upon Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 1990(1) Recent Revenue Reports 2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the value, as has been assessed by the learned court below, is quite fair and reasonable, where the same has been increased from Rs. 40/- per tree to Rs. 45/- per tree which does not call for any interference. As far as judgment of this Court in Sukhdev RFA No. 2382 of 1990 [2] Singh's case (supra) is concerned, the same was not disputed. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant. As far as number of trees standing on the acquired land is concerned, the same is not in dispute. Vide impugned award, the learned court below, while determining the age of the trees at the time of acquisition to be 6 years, held that the compensation, as was assessed by the Collector @ Rs. 40/- per tree certainly deserved increase and accordingly, the amount was determined at Rs. 45/- per tree. This Court in Sukhdev Singh's case (supra) had opined that compensation for trees, if assessed for two crops, would be just and fair and the amount and the compensation as was assessed by the Collector therein per tree, was just doubled. Same view was expressed by this Court in R.F.A. No. 2505 of 1991 –State of Haryana v. Avtar Singh, decided on 30.3.2009. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the aforesaid judgments, the value of Safeda trees standing on the land is assessed at Rs. 80/- per tree as against Rs. 40/- per tree determined by the Collector, which was increased to Rs. 45/- per tree by the learned court below. The appellant shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available under the Act. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge April 27, 2009 mk