RFA No. 858 of 1995 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision : 20.4.2009 1. RFA No. 858 of 1995 (O&M) Hazara Singh ..... Appellant vs The State of Punjab ..... Respondent 2. RFA No. 859 of 1995 (O&M) Sadhu Singh and another ..... Appellants vs The State of Punjab ..... Respondent 3. RFA No. 874 of 1995 (O&M) The State of Punjab ..... Appellant vs Sadhu Singh and another ..... Respondents 4. RFA No. 3673 of 1999 (O&M) The State of Punjab ..... Appellant vs Hazara Singh ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Naresh Kaushal, Advocate, for the landowners. Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of Regular First Appeal No. 858 and 859 of 1995 filed by the landowners for further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land and RFA No. 874 of 1995 and 3673 of 1999 have been filed by the State for reduction thereof. All these appeals are taken up together as the same are arising out of common acquisition. The facts have been noticed from RFA No. 858 of 1995. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the State of Punjab vide notification dated 19.11.1980 issued under Section 4 of the Act, acquired the land along with the structures and trees standing thereon, situated within the revenue estate of Village Mataur, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar (now District Mohali), for development as Urban Estate. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed Rs. RFA No. 858 of 1995 (2) 15352.91 paise as compensation for the trees standing on the acquired land. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide impugned award assessed value of the trees at Rs. 19,000/- as the compensation. Learned counsel for the appellants/landowners submitted that the issue involved in the present set appeals is squarely covered by the judgment of this court in RFA No. 114 of 1996 Gurpal Singh and another vs The State of Punjab decided on 7.7.2006, whereby it was directed to revise the compensation payable to the claimants on account of acquisition of trees standing on the acquired land on the basis of Jasbir Singh's report. Learned Assistant Advocate General does not dispute this factual position. For the detailed reasons recorded in Gurpal Singh's case (supra), the appeals are disposed of in the same terms. 20.4.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge