RFA No. 853 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 853 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.5.2009 Jarnail Singh and others .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. M. K. Chouhan, Advocate for the appellants. Ms. Palika Monga, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the State. .. Rajesh Bindal J. The land owners are in appeal before this Court against award dated 12.6.2008, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula seeking further enhancement of compensation for the fruit bearing trees standing on the acquired land. Briefly, the facts are that land along with fruit bearing trees standing thereon, situated in village Saketri, HB No. 376, Tehsil and District Panchkula, was acquired vide notification dated 16.3.1999, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'). The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the value of the trees at Rs. 19,410/-. Aggrieved against the same, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned court below who, keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, granted 200% increase on the value of the trees assessed by the Collector. A perusal of the impugned award shows that the learned court below had granted compensation to the appellants on account of acquisition of fruit bearing trees by assessing the value thereof as per Dr. Nijjar's formula, which is judicially accepted, and granting further increase thereon in terms of difference in wholesale price index from 1985 to 1999. Learned counsel for the appellants has RFA No. 853 of 2009 [2] not been able to point out as to what illegality has been committed by the learned court below in assessing the value of fruit bearing trees in terms of the settled proposition of law. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. As an abandoned caution, it is mentioned here that the present order will not prejudice the State/ Haryana Urban Development Authority, in any manner, in case they wish to challenge the order impugned seeking reduction in the compensation assessed by the learned court below, as the present appeal has been dismissed because the claim made herein was for further enhancement of compensation. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 30.5.2009 mk