RFA No. 335 of 2004 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision : 12.5.2010 1. R. F. A No. 335 of 2004 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ... Appellant vs Surjit Singh .... Respondent 2. R. F. A No. 336 of 2004 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ... Appellant vs Mukhtiar Singh and others .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate, for Union Territory, Chandigarh. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of the aforesaid appeals, as the same arise out of common acquisition. The Union Territory, Chandigarh has filed the appeals seeking reduction in the compensation granted for the superstructure and fruit/non- fruit bearing trees standing on the acquired land. The facts have been extracted from RFA No. 335 of 2004. Briefly, the facts are that the land in Village Maloya (Chandigarh) was acquired vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on 8.7.1994, for the development of Sector-56, Chandigarh. The Land Acquisition Collector determined the compensation payable for the superstructures and the fruit/non-fruit bearing trees existing on the acquired land. Aggrieved against the award, the landowners filed objections which were referred to the learned Reference Court, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, partly accepted the same by granting increase of 25% on the value as assessed at PWD rates for the superstructure and 40% increase in the value of the fruit and non-fruit bearing trees. It is this order which is challenged before this court. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned court below had granted 25% increase on the compensation for acquisition of superstructures on the rate determined by PWD which is in conformity with judgment of this court in RFA No. 579 of 2006 Smt. Akko Devi and others vs Union Territory, Chandigarh and another, decided on 1.10.2008. Therefore, no RFA No. 335 of 2004 2 case for reduction is made out. As regards grant of 40% increase in the fruit/non- fruit bearing is concerned, the increase in the price index is more than 100%, however, the court below has granted only 40% increase which cannot be said on higher side. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. 12.5.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge