RFA No. 173 of 1993 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh RFA No. 173 of 1993 (O&M) Date of decision : 16.9.2010 Niranjan Singh and others ... Appellants vs The Land Acquisition Collector and another ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Yatinder Shama, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. The landowners are in appeal before this Court against the award passed by learned court below seeking enhancement of compensation for the fruit bearing trees and tubewell etc. existing on the acquired land. Briefly, the facts are that State of Punjab vide notification dated 26.11.1982 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') acquired land along with tubewell/ superstructures existing thereon situated within the revenue estate of Village Saini Majra, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar (Now District Mohali) for construction of SYL Canal. The Land Acquisition Collector vide award dated 16.7.1987 assessed the market value of the superstructures existing on the acquired land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowner filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 5.10.1992 dismissed the reference. It is this award which is impugned in the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the court below had not assessed just and fair compensation for the well, tubewell and 35 mango trees existing on the day when the land was acquired. It was submitted that the court below had wrongly discarded the evidence of appellants and considered the evidence of the the respondents while assessing the market value of the well and tubewell. It was further submitted that though the value of the fruit bearing trees has been assessed as per Dr. Nijjar's formula, but no compensation has been granted regarding the plantation of the trees and maintenance thereof. The submission was that considering the evidence led by the appellants, just and fair compensation regarding the superstructures existing on the acquired land be awarded to them. RFA No. 173 of 1993 (2) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that no evidence was led by the appellants regarding the age of the trees and the amount spent by them on the well and tubewell. It is only on the basis of documents produced on record by the respondents that the appellants have been granted just and fair compensation which does not call any further increase. No other point was raised by either of the parties. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book. It is a case where the appellants/claimants failed to establish their claim. A perusal of the paper-book shows that initially the value of ` 16,876/- with regard to tubewell etc. was prepared by RW1 Harjit Singh but this estimate was revised by the Executive Engineer to ` 17,785/-. On the other hand, the appellants produced report, Ex. P3, prepared by Sital Singh, which was not proved on record. His son PW3 Jaswinder Singh, who is an homeopath, had simply identified the signatures and writing of his father on the report. He had no knowledge about the construction and therefore, the court below has rightly discarded his testimony and accepted the report prepared by an expert of the respondent department. As far as determination of market value of the fruit bearing trees is concerned, the respondents examined RW2 Baldev Singh, who had assessed the compensation for the fruit bearing trees at ` 3,412.50 paise according to Dr. Nijjar's formula which has been judicially accepted. On the other hand, the appellants examined PW1 Jasbir Singh Retired Deputy Director Horticulture, who prepared the report, Ex. P1, and valuation statement P-2. But he failed to produce on record the rough notes, on the basis of which he prepared the valuation report. Once this fact was admitted that the estimate prepared for the trees was in terms of Dr. Nijjar's formula, which was accepted as such, I do not find any illegality in the impugned award as far as the assessment of value of the fruit bearing trees as well. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 16.9.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge