R. F. A No. 10 of 1992 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision : 19.11.2008 1. R. F. A No. 10 of 1992 (O&M) Land Acquisition Collector, S.Y.L. Canal Project, Patiala and another ... Appellants vs Prem Singh .... Respondent 2. R. F. A No. 11 of 1992 (O&M) Land Acquisition Collector, S.Y.L. Canal Project, Patiala and another ... Appellants vs Shamsher Singh and others .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of Regular First Appeal Nos. 10 and 11 of 1992 filed by the State of Punjab, as the same arise out of the common award of the court below. The State has approached this court for reduction in the compensation of trees standing on the acquired land. However, the facts have been extracted from R. F. A. No. 10 of 1992. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 22.2.1985, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), the State of Punjab, acquired the land situated in Village Ropar along with the trees standing thereon for Construction of S. Y. L. Canal. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, “the Collector”) assessed the market value of the trees at Rs. 25,491.15 paise for fruit bearing trees and Rs. 11,480.38 paise for Eucalyptus trees. Dissatisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, the landowners/claimants filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 25.9.1990, enhanced the market value of the trees at Rs. 1,21,200/- for the fruit bearing trees and Rs. 26,040/- for Eucalyptus trees. R. F. A No. 10 of 1992 2 Learned counsel for the State submitted that no basis has been applied by the learned court below while assessing the value of the trees standing on the acquired land as it was merely the claim made by the landowners which was accepted. He further submitted that as far as the market value of the fruit bearing and Eucalyptus trees are concerned, the claim made by the landowners was granted by the Collector. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. The admitted position on record is that when the land in question was acquired, there were 47 mango, 10 Guava, 12 Jamun, 1 kikkar, 1 Galgal and 206 Eucalyptus trees. The Collector assessed the value thereof at Rs. 25,491.15 paise for fruit bearing trees and Rs. 11,480.38 paise for Eucalyptus trees. In the evidence led by the landowners in the form of statement of PW4 Jasbir Singh and the estimates prepared by him, it was stated that the value of the fruit bearing trees was not less than Rs. 1,21,269/- as the same was assessed according to Dr. Harbans Singh's formula which was accepted in Ranjit Singh vs the Union Territory of Chandigarh 1983 PLJ 290, wherein difference for price index was also granted. Even in the statement of RW1, it was admitted that the calculation made by PW4 Jasbir Singh was in accordance with Dr. Nijjar's formula, which was being applied those days. Once this fact was admitted that the estimate prepared by the landowners was in terms of Dr. Nijjar's formula, which was accepted as such as the same is based on the Government instructions, I do not find any illegality in the impugned award as far as the assessment of value of the fruit bearing trees are concerned. As far as the value of the Eucalyptus trees is concerned, considering the rival claims of the parties, the learned court below had to apply a thumb rule for the determination of value thereof by averaging both the claims. By applying that method as against the claim of Rs. 40,600/- of the landowners it assessed the value at Rs. 26,040/- against the assessment of Rs. 11,480.38 paise by the Collector, which also does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. 19.11.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge