RFA No. 878 of 1994 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 878 of 1994 (O&M) Date of decision : 8.11.2010 Rattan Chand alias Ram Rattan (deceased) through LRs ...Appellant vs Punjab State and another ...Respondents Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. H. S. Bhullar, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal, J. The land owner has filed appeal against the impugned award seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 20.5.1988, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') the State of Punjab, acquired land along with trees/ structure standing thereon situated within the revenue estate of Village Ahmadpur, Tehsil and District Ropar, for public purpose. It was followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act dated 14.6.1988. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short 'the Collector') assessed the compensation for the acquired land @ ` 1,02,330.47, ` 2,445.95 for structures, ` 8,062.03 for trees and ` 5,750/- per crop. The land owners being dissatisfied with the award of the Collector filed objections which were referred to the learned Court below. The learned Reference Court assessed the compensation for the trees at ` 1,76,880/-. Aggrieved against the award of the learned court below, the landowner is in appeal before this court. Learned counsel for the landowner was fair enough to submit that as far as valuation of the trees standing on the acquired land is concerned, sufficient amount of compensation has been awarded by the learned court below which has been increased from ` 8,062.03 awarded by the Collector to ` 1,76,880/-. However, he submitted that the land on which the aforesaid trees were standing was also acquired, and for that the landowners have not been awarded just and fair compensation. However, he has not been able to point out any evidence produced on the record to show that the value of the land as was awarded by the Collector was not just and fair. In the absence of any RFA No. 878 of 1994 (2) evidence on record to justify that the assessment of value of the acquired land by the Collector was not just and fair, this court is not in a position to record that the award of the Collector or the court below desevers interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 8.11.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge