In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh RFA No. 128 of 2006 (O&M) Ranjit Singh and others ..... Appellants vs The State of Punjab ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Naresh Kaushal, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. The landowners are in appeal before this court against the award of the learned court below passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') seeking further enhancement of compensation for the trees and structure standing on the acquired land. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the State of Punjab vide notification dated 11.11.1993 issued under Section 4 of the Act, acquired land situated in Village Sohana, District Ropar, for industrial purpose. The Land Acquisition Collector announced the supplementary award for the tubewells, trees etc. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below granted 80% increase on the value of the trees, as was assessed by the Collector. Earlier on 9.4.2010 the appeal was dismissed in default. Learned counsel for the appellants had filed application for restoration of the appeal which was accepted considering the ground made out by him. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the appellants had not been able to make out a case for any further enhancement of compensation as was assessed by the learned court below which is based on Dr. Nijjar's formula applied for valuation of fruit bearing trees. Enhancement thereon has also been awarded appropriately. The court below has also granted appropriate increase on the superstructure standing on the acquired land. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. The same is dismissed. 21.7.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge