RFANo.1819 of 1992 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Decided on August 16 ,2010. Prem Singh --Appellant vs. Land Acquisition Collector, SYL, Canal Project,Patiala and another -- Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Iqbal Singh Rangpuri, for the appellant Mr. R.L.Gupta,Addl.A.G.Punjab,for the respondents. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J, This order shall dispose of two appeals bearing RFA No.1819 of 1992 titled as Prem Singh Vs. Land Acquisition Collector and another and RFA No. 2397 of 1991 titled State of Punjab and another Vs. Prem Singh. Both the appeals have been filed against the common order passed by learned Addl.District Judge, Ropar, dated 19.7.1991 by which the appellant/claimant has been held entitled to a sum of Rs.1,26,200/- for the acquired fruit trees and Rs.80,000/- per acre in respect of their acquired land. He was also held entitled to all the statutory benefits in terms of the amended Act. For the sake of convenience, facts are being extracted from RFANo.1819 of 1992 2 RFA No. 1819 of 1992 titled as Prem Singh Vs. Land Acquisition Collector, SYL Canal and another. Land of the appellant alongwith some fruit trees was acquired. By way of supplementary award dated 17.7.1986, in respect of the fruit trees, a sum of Rs.1,00,475/- was awarded. Unsatisfied with the amount of compensation, the claimant sought reference only with regard to the assessed compensation in respect of fruit trees. It was admitted by the State that there were 195 trees of amrood (guava), five trees of mango and 4 trees of lemon at the time of acquisition of the land in question. To substantiate his case, appellant examined Manmohan Singh as PW-1, Jasbir Singh as PW-2 and himself appeared as PW-3, whereas the respondents had examined Bhagwant Singh ,Horticulture Inspector as RW-1. After taking into consideration the evidence available on record, the Court below reassessed the market value of the acquired trees to the tune of Rs. 1,26,200/- and a sum of Rs.80,000/- was awarded in respect of the acquired land. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Court below has erred in deducting 10% premium added by PW-2 Jasbir Singh on the ground of nearness to the market. He has argued that the said amount of 10% premium which has been deducted, should be awarded to the appellant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that PW-2 has wrongly added 10% premium in the value of the trees because of its nearness to the market as it would not enhance the value of the trees in any manner. RFANo.1819 of 1992 3 I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have perused the record with their assistance. I do not find any error in the order of the learned reference Court in deducting 10% of the added premium in the value of the acquired trees because if the orchard is near the market, it would not enhance the value of the trees by itself. Thus, in my opinion, there is no error in the order of the Court below in sofar as the appeal of the appellant is concerned. Insofar as the appeal of the respondent/State is concerned, learned counsel for the State has failed to point out any error in the award of the learned Court below. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in these appeals and the same are hereby by dismissed. No costs. August 16,2010 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge