R. F. A No. 50 of 1993 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh RFA No. 50 of 1993 (O&M) Date of decision : 16.9.2010 Gurdev Singh ..... Appellant vs The Land Acquisition Collector and another ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. The landowner is in appeal against the award dated 5.10.1992 passed by the learned court below seeking further enhancement of compensation for the fruit bearing trees standing on the acquired land. Briefly, the facts are that the State of Punjab acquired the land situated within the revenue estate of Village Saini Majra, Tehsil and District Ropar vide notification dated 26.11.1982 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), for construction of Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation for the fruit bearing trees vide award dated 16.7.1987. Dissatisfied with the same, the landowner filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 5.10.1992, allowed the reference and awarded ` 219.50 paise more. It is this award which is impugned in the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in support of his claim, the appellant had produced on record sufficient evidence in the form of oral as well as documentary but the learned court below had not appreciated the same. The appellants produced on record, report Ex. P-1 and valuation report, Ex. P-2, prepared by PW1 Jasbir Singh, retired Deputy Director Horticulture, Punjab. The same was ignored by the court below while assessing the compensation. It was prayed that the compensation be enhanced. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that sufficient amount has already been awarded to the appellant by the learned court below. He submitted that the court below has rightly discarded the deposition of PW1 Jasbir Singh as he prepared his report on the basis of rough notes which had R. F. A No. 50 of 1993 2 not been produced on record whereas the respondents produced RW1 Baldev Singh, Horticulture Development Officer, prepared his report on the basis of Dr. Nijjar's formula. He submitted that fair amount has been awarded to the appellant and the same does not call for any further increase. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book. A perusal of the impugned award shows that RW1 Baldev Singh, who visited the acquired land on 15.12.1983, found that 33 mango trees were existing there. RW2 Baldev Singh had assessed the compensation for the fruit bearing trees at ` 3,435.25 paise according to Dr. Nijjar's formula which has been judicially accepted in number of cases. However, the court below considering the valuation report awarded ` 219.50 paise more. Once this fact is 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. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 16.9.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge