R.F.A. No. 2235 of 1991 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 2235 of 1991 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.8.2010 Bara Singh and another .. Appellants v. The Land Acquisition Collector and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. S. S. Kamboj, Advocate for the land owners. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. The appellants are in appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned court below for super structure and trees standing on the acquired land. Briefly, the facts of the case are that land along with super structure and trees existing thereon was acquired by the State of Punjab for the purpose of construction of SYL canal. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') awarded ` 84.80 for the trees and ` 849/- for the structure existing on the acquired land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below upheld the award of the court below. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the amount of compensation awarded on account of trees standing on the acquired land was not just and fair and even for the tubewell also, reasonable amount has not been assessed. The land owner while appearing as a witness in the court specifically stated that there were five kikar, five gulgul, ten eucalyptus, three shehtoot and two shisham trees. Kikar trees were of the age of more than 10 years, age of eucalyptus trees was 7 years, shehtoot trees were of the age of five years and gulgul trees were of the age of three years. The aforesaid facts have not been considered while assessing the amount of compensation. Besides that, there was a tubewell. However, except oral statements of the claimants, there was no evidence R.F.A. No. 2235 of 1991 [2] led. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the spot was visited by Tejinder Singh, who appeared as RW1. He stated on oath that there were only six trees standing on the acquired land, i.e., four shehtoot and two other trees, for which appropriate amount of compensation was assessed at ` 84.80. Even for the tubewell existing on the spot, a sum of ` 849/- was assessed as compensation. He submitted that in the absence of any documentary or trust worthy evidence, there is no scope for any interference. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. To prove the number of trees standing on the acquired land, it is only the oral statements made by the land owners. No expert witness was produced by them in support of their claim. As against that, the State had produced the person who had visited the spot and counted the number of trees standing thereon. No mala fides can be attributed to him. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the amount of compensation as assessed for the trees standing on the acquired land calls for any interference by this court. Similar is the position with regard to the value of tubewell existing on the acquired land as the land owners on that account also did not lead any evidence. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 19.8.2010 mk