R. F. A No. 1353 of 2003 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R. F. A No. 1353 of 2003 (O&M) Date of decision : 6.9.2010 Kesar Singh ... Appellant vs Land Acquisition Collector .... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: None for the appellant. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. The landowner has filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for the trees standing on the acquired land. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 11.11.1993 issued under Sections 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), the Government of Punjab, acquired land along with trees/ structures situated in Village Sohana, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar (now District Mohali), for public purpose. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, “the Collector”) assessed the market value of the fruit/non-fruit bearing trees vide his award dated 16.6.1994. 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 2.5.2002, granted increase @ 60% on the value as assessed by the Collector as per Dr. Nijjar's formula. This award of the learned court below is under challenge before this court. No one has appeared for the appellant. The only issue involved in the present appeal is for grant of compensation for the fruit bearing trees. It is not in dispute that though the court below has referred to Dr. Nijjar's formula, which is judicially accepted in number of judgments, and applied, however, the correct appreciation according to the price index, for the period from 1985 till the date of acquisition, was not granted to the landowners. As regards percentage of R. F. A No. 1353 of 2003 (2) increase is concerned, the price index in the year 1985 was 127.2%, which had risen to 228.7% in the year 1993 when the land was acquired. Though the difference in the price index is 101.5, however, the same increase cannot be granted on the value so determined by the Collector as the differential increase is 80% only. Accordingly, the appellant is granted increase @ 80% instead of 60% as granted by the learned court below. The appellant shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits available under the Act. The appeal stands disposed of. 6.9.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge