R.F.A. No. 1759 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 1759 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.7.2010 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant v. Gurjit Singh .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. P. C. Dhiman, Advocate for the respondent. ... Rajesh Bindal J. The Union Territory, Chandigarh is in appeal before this Court against the award of the learned court below seeking reduction in the compensation for the fruit and non-fruit bearing trees existing on the acquired land. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 23.12.1999 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), Union Territory, Chandigarh acquired the land situated in village Sarangpur, U. T., Chandigarh along with super structure and fruit/non-fruit bearing trees. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') awarded compensation. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owner filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below granted 25% increase in the valuation of super structure and 194% in the valuation of fruit bearing trees, as assessed by the Collector, plus 10% due to nearness to the market in Chandigarh. It is this award which is impugned before this court. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the amount awarded on account of super structure is on the higher side. As far as compensation on account of fruit/non-fruit bearing trees is concerned, the percentage awarded to the land owner is on the higher side, which should not have been more than 100%. In R.F.A. No. 1759 of 2009 [2] fact, the award of the Collector deserves to be upheld and the amount awarded by the learned court below be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-land owner submitted that increase granted by the learned court below on the value of super structure, as assessed by the Collector @ 25% thereon is strictly in terms of judgments of this court, such as RFA No. 663 of 2004 –Union Territory, Chandigarh v. Sajjan Singh, decided on 2.8.2006, RFA No. 579 of 2006 – Smt. Akko Devi and others v. Union Territory, Chandigarh and another, decided on 1.10.2008, RFA No. 1990 of 2002—Bhagwan Kaur and others v. The Punjab State and another, decided on 4.12.2008, RFA No. 727 of 2001—Narinder Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, decided on 4.2.2009, RFA No. 3921 of 2007— Arunash Chander Kaushik and others v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, decided on 10.2.2009, RFA No. 3004 of 2006—Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab and another, decided on 2.3.2009 and R.F.A. No. 2804 of 2008- Joginder Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, decided on 10.3.2010. As far as valuation of fruit bearing trees is concerned, it was submitted that price index in the year 1985 being 127.2 and in the year 1999, when the land in question was acquired, being 419, the increase during that period would come out to 228% and not 194%, as granted by the learned court below, which is on the lower side. As far as non-fruit bearing trees is concerned, the submission is that the learned court below had merely granted 100% increase, i.e., compensation for two crops. The same is also in conformity with the judgments of this court in R.F.A. No. 663 of 2004 –Union Territtory, Chandigarh v. Sajjan Singh, decided on 2.8.2006 and R.F.A. No. 727 of 2001 –Narinder Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, decided on 4.2.2009. Accordingly, no case is made out for reduction in compensation. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. As far as valuation of super structure is concerned, the Collector granted Rs. 70,955.86. It has been consistently held by this Court that the valuation made by the Collector being conservative, as a thumb rule, the land owner should be granted some increase thereon, which was taken as 25%. The same having been granted by the learned court below, no fault can be found with the same. As far as valuation of fruit bearing trees is concerned, even there the increase granted by the learned court below being only 194%, whereas the price index was 127.2 in the year 1985, which increased to 419 in the year 1999 and R.F.A. No. 1759 of 2009 [3] difference being 291.8, increase would come out to 228%. Accordingly, no case is made out for interference in the award on that ground as well. As far as non-fruit bearing trees is concerned, it is only that benefit of two crops had been granted instead of one, meaning thereby increase @ 100%. The same is also in conformity with the judgments of this court, referred to above. Learned counsel for the appellant did not point out that in execution of the decree, the appellant paid more than double the amount. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 13.7.2010 mk