R.F.A. No. 2125 of 1992 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No.2125 of 1992 and Cross Objections No.66/C1 of 1993 (O&M) Date of decision: 29.7.2010 The State of Punjab and another .. Appellants v. Maghi .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Pankaj Mulwani, Advocate for the land owner. ... Rajesh Bindal J. The State is in appeal seeking reduction in the amount of compensation awarded to the land owner for the trees existing on the acquired land. The land owner has also filed cross-objections praying for further enhancement of compensation. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 26/27.11.1982, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Punjab acquired the land along with trees in village Saini Majra, Tehsil and District Ropar, for construction of SYL canal. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector) assessed the value of trees. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value 42 mango trees at ` 94,468/- and ` 1,950/- for three sheesham trees and four safeda trees. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the value of fruit bearing as well as non-fruit bearing trees, as has been assessed by the learned court below, is quite on higher side. Though the number of trees standing on the acquired land was merely 27, however, the same have been taken to be 42. Even the increase granted on the value so assessed @ 167% is quite on higher side. On the other hand, learned counsel for the land owner/cross objector submitted that the number of trees was wrongly assessed by the Collector. In the evidence, even the witness produced by the State admitted the fact that the number of trees standing on the acquired land was 42. The learned court below has failed R.F.A. No. 2125 of 1992 [2] to grant appropriate percentage of increase to the land owner on the value so assessed by the Collector in terms of Dr. Nijjar's formula, which had the base of 1966. The acquisition in the present case having been issued on 26/27.11.1982, the price index in the year 1966 was 144.3 which increased to 516 in the year 1982. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. As far as number of trees is concerned, a perusal of the impugned award shows that though the Collector assessed the number thereof as 27, however, the claim of the land owner was that there were 42 trees standing on the acquired land. This fact was admitted by RW1-Baldev Singh in his cross- examination. He also admitted that he prepared the estimated value of only 27 mango trees. The value of 42 mango trees was assessed at ` 36,333/- as against ` 23,336/- for 27 trees. Accordingly, the contention raised by learned counsel for the State that number of trees was wrongly assessed has no legs to stand. As far as award of increase on the value of the fruit bearing trees is concerned, it has come on record that the value has been assessed as per Dr. Nijjar's formula published in the year 1966. The price index in the year 1966 was 144.3, which rose to 516 in the year 1982, when the acquisition of land along with trees was carried out. In terms of settled proposition of law on the issue of assessment of compensation of fruit bearing trees as per Dr. Nijjar's formula, the land owner is entitled to increase in terms of increase in the price index. The increase from 1966 to 1982 in the price index is to the tune of 260%. Accordingly, the land owner in the present case shall be entitled to increase @ 260% on the value of 42 trees, as assessed at ` 36,333/- along with statutory benefits available to him under the Act. Needless to add that the amount of compensation as has been assessed and awarded by the learned court below on account of non-fruit bearing trees shall remain intact. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the State is dismissed, whereas the cross-objections filed by the land owner are allowed in the manner indicated above. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 29.7.2010 mk