RFA No. 647 of 1991 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision : 17.8.2010 1. RFA No. 647 of 1991 (O&M) Jagir Singh ..... Appellant vs State of Punjab .... Respondent 2. RFA No. 1629 of 1991 (O&M) The State of Punjab ..... Appellant vs Jagir Singh .... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate, for the landowner. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of the aforesaid appeals as the same arise out of common acquisition. The landowner has filed appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for the trees existing on the acquired land whereas by filing appeal the State is seeking reduction of compensation. Briefly, the facts are that the land situated in village Hulka, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala along with trees and structure, was acquired by the State Government vide notification Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for SYL Canal. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of the trees vide his award dated 15.10.1985. Aggrieved against the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, who assessed the market value of the trees @ ` 190/- and awarded benefits of two crops. It is this award of the learned Reference Court which is impugned in the present appeals by both the parties. Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the learned court below has committed an error while awarding the market value of the trees on the date of acquisition. It was submitted that though the court below had assessed the value of the trees @ ` 220/- for one crop but awarded only ` 190/- per tree relying upon other award. It was prayed that award of the court below be set aside and the compensation be enhanced. RFA No. 647 of 1991 -2- On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that award of the learned court below is according to the evidence led by the claimant. It was submitted that the just and fair compensation has been granted by the Collector, which does not call for any enhancement. The submission was for reduction in compensation granted by the learned court below. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. Admittedly, the court below had assessed the value of the acquired trees at the time of acquisition @ ` 220/- per tree for one crop including the branches and fuel wood keeping in view the plantation and maintenance thereof. However, while granting the compensation for the same, it had wrongly relied upon other award which had no relevance with the present case. When the court below had assessed the value of the trees in the present case @ ` 220/- per tree for one crop, it should have granted the same. Accordingly, the award of the learned court below is modified to this extent and the landowner is granted compensation @ ` 220/- per tree as against ` 190/-. The landowner shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits available under the Act. The impugned award of the learned court below is modified to the extent mentioned above. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the State is dismissed and that of the landowner is allowed in the above terms. 17.8.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge