R.F.A. No. 485 of 1989 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 485 of 1989 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.8.2010 Gurtej Singh and others .. Appellants v. Union of India and another .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. M. L. Sarin, Senior Advocate with Mr. Hemant Sarin, Advocates for the appellants. Rajesh Bindal J. The land owners are in appeal against the award dated 26.11.1988, passed by the learned court below, seeking enhancement of compensation for the trees standing on the acquired land. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 9.10.1974, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Punjab acquired the land along with trees standing thereon. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') awarded compensation of ` 3,621.24 for 64 trees vide award dated 23.9.1986. 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 Collector. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the amount of compensation, as has been assessed and paid by the Collector on account of trees standing on the acquired land is not just and fair. Even the learned court below failed to appreciate the evidence produced on record by the land owners. In fact, there were 80 trees standing on the acquired land, whereas compensation was paid only for 64 trees. The evidence led by the land owners showing the value of trees standing on the acquired land has been totally ignored referring to some small discrepancies in the oral evidence vis-a-vis the petition filed by the appellants, which apparently could be there for the reason that there was long gap in the acquisition and when the evidence was recorded. After hearing learned counsel for the land owners, I do not consider R.F.A. No. 485 of 1989 [ 2] it appropriate to interfere with the impugned award at this stage, considering the fact that the land was acquired way back on 9.10.1974. The value of 64 trees standing on the acquired land was assessed at ` 3,621.24. Even if the number of trees are taken at 80 instead of 64, as claimed by the land owners, and the compensation payable to the land owners is further enhanced to some extent, still the exercise which has to be gone into and the amount likely to be spent for getting the enhanced amount of compensation may be more than the additional amount of compensation, which may be payable to the land owners. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 11.8.2010 mk