R.F.A. No. 912 of 2009 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 13.7.2010 (1) R.F.A. No. 912 of 2009 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant v. Ram Singh and others .. Respondents (2) R.F.A. No. 913 of 2009 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ... Appellant v. Surinder Singh and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. P. K. Mutneja, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents despite service. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of two appeals bearing No. 912 and 913 of 2009, as common questions of law and facts are involved. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 912 of 2009. 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 1.1.2001, 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., R.F.A. No. 912 of 2009 [ 2] Chandigarh along with fruit/non-fruit bearing trees. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') awarded compensation. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below granted 340% increase, with a further increase of 10% on account of nearness to market over and above the value of the fruit bearing trees as assessed by the Collector. It is this award which is impugned before this court. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned court below has committed patent error while granting increase @ 340% on the value of fruit bearing trees, as assessed by the Collector in terms of Dr. Nijjar's formula. Admittedly, the price index in the year 1985 was 127.2, which increased to 468 in 2001, when the land in question was acquired along with trees thereon. The difference in the price index would not constitute increase in percentage. The percentage increased from 1985 to 2001 on 127.2 would be 268%, as adding that amount in 127.2, the resultant would be 468.09. The grant of increase @ 340% is certainly un-called for. Though service of the respondents is complete, however, no one has put in appearance for them. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, I find merit in the submissions made by him in that regard. The issue involved in the present case is merely of mathematical calculation. It is apparently wrong application of principles. The difference in the price index is not to be applied as percentage for the purpose of grant of increase on the base value. The learned court below finding that difference in two price indexes, namely, for the years 1985 and 2001 being 340.8%, granted increase @340% on 127.2%. If 340% is added on 127.2, the resultant would be 559.68 and not 468, which should have been the final figure after adding the right percentage thereon. If calculated the correct percentage, to which the land owners would be entitled to on account of increase in the price index would be 268% on 127.2, as the valuation of fruit bearing trees had been done by the Collector admittedly in terms of Dr. Nijjar's formula, which determines the value thereon in the year 1985 and the land having been acquired in the year 2001, the increase is being granted thereon as per increase in the price index. After adding increase @ 268% on 127.2, the resultant figure would be 468.09. Accordingly, the impugned award of the learned court below is modified to the extent that increase granted by the learned court below @ 340% is reduced to 268%, without disturbing any other finding on merit. R.F.A. No. 912 of 2009 [ 3] The appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated above. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 13.7.2010 mk (Refer to reporter)