RFA No. 1 of 2005 9.12.2009 Present: Mr. Yash Chauhan, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. J. S. Rana, Asstt. Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Anil Chauhan, Advocate, for respondents No. 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13 and 14. The appeal has been filed against the impugned award dated 30.10.2002 passed by the District Judge, Kinnaur Civil Division at Rampur Bushahr, H.P. in Land Reference Petition No. 72 of 2000. After the matter was heard for some time the learned counsel for the parties could not explain as to how the impugned award was sustainable in law. The Court below has rejected the appellant’s claim for award of compensation with respect to the trees on the acquired land by relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in State of Haryana versus Gurcharan Singh & another etc., AIR 1996 SC 106. The ratio of law laid down in the said decision is evidently not applicable to the facts of the instant case as in the State of H.P. instructions issued by the State Government with respect to separate determination of compensation both for land as also trees are in vogue as has been held by this Court in Collector L.A.C. Mandi versus Karam Singh and others, Latest HLJ 2000 (HP) 694 after relying upon the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in State of J & K versus Mohammed Mateenwani & others, AIR 1998 SC 2470. In the impugned award there is no justification for increase of the market value of the acquired land by 30%. In fact no reasoning whatsoever has been given by the Court below while enhancing the same. As such in my considered view the award is not only unreasoned but has been passed in disregard of the settled position of law and without any material to justify the reasoning adopted for enhancing the compensation. As such the impugned award is set aside. As agreed upon by the parties the matter is remanded back to the Court for adjudication afresh. The original land reference petition No. 72 of 2000, titled as Sh. Sohan Singh versus State of H.P. and others is restored to its original position. Parties undertake to appear before the Court on 15.1.2010. Opportunity to lead additional evidence, if any, shall be afforded to the parties in support of their claim. The petitioner shall be decided as expeditiously as possible. The record be sent back immediately. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. December 9, 2009 (PK)