RFA No. 3123 of 1993 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RFA No. 3123 of 1993 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.1.2010. Jhujhar Singh ....Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. Sandeep Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Palvinder Singh, Sr. DAG Punjab. RAJESH BINDAL, J **** The appellant has filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation on account of acquisition of land. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 6.3.1986 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') the State Government acquired land situated in the revenue estate of village Terkiana, Tehsil Dasuya Distict Hoshiarpur for the construction of Mukerian, Hydel Project Channel Talwara. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the land at different rates such as for Chahi and Gair Mumkin Rasta @ Rs. 20,988/- per acre and Sailab @ Rs. 9,589.95 per acre. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned Court below determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 74,400/- per acre. However, nothing was awarded on account of trees allegedly standing on the land. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Court below has failed to appreciate the evidence led by him for award of compensation for the fruit bearing and non-fruit bearing trees standing on the acquired land. He referred to the oral evidence in support therein. All the persons who allegedly planted the trees and also the persons who had been purchasing the fruit crops and also the lambardar of village, were examined. On the other hand learned counsel for the State submitted that as far as the claim regarding fruit bearing and non-fruit bearing trees standing on the acquired land is concerned the case set up by the appellant is totally misconceived as no documentary evidence was led in support thereof. Mere oral statement would not justify the claim in that regard. Even during the survey at the time of acquisition, the Collector did not find any tree standing on the RFA No. 3123 of 1993 (O&M) 2 acquired land as the same has not come in any of the report. The claim set up by the appellant in the present case is totally false and the appeal deserves to be dismissed on that count. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. All what the appellant has produced in evidence in support of his claim for grant of compensation on account of acquisition of fruit bearing and non-fruit bearing trees is the oral evidence of the persons who according to the appellant had supervised the plantation of trees; the person who allegedly purchased the fruit crops and a lambardar of village. This in my opinion cannot be said to be sufficient to record a finding in favour of appellant to hold him entitled to payment of compensation by recording a finding that the trees in fact were standing on the acquired land at the time of acquisition. There is nothing on record to suggest that at the time of survey by the Collector before acquisition of land any trees were found standing on the acquired land. Further even no Khasra Girdhaweris or Jamabandis have been produced by the appellant on record in support of his claim that any orchard was existing on the acquired land, even as per entries in the revenue record once the claim was that the trees were quite old and the appellant was even selling the fruit crops. Considering the aforesaid fact in my opinion no illegality has been committed by learned Court below in dismissing the claim of the appellant with regard to the compensation for the fruit bearing and non-fruit bearing tress. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 21.1.2010. JUDGE Reema