R.F.A. No. 1948 of 2004 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision : 12.5.2010 1. R.F.A. No. 1948 of 2004 and Cross-objection No. 167/CI of 2004(O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Appellant Versus Gurcharan Singh and others ..... Respondents 2. R.F.A. No. 1949 of 2004 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Appellant Versus Gurnam Singh and others ..... Respondents 3. R.F.A. No. 1950 of 2004 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Appellant Versus Labh Singh and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mrs. Lisa Gill, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. P. C. Dhiman, Advocate, for the respondents/cross-objectors. Rajesh Bindal J. The Union Territory, Chandigarh is in appeal before this court against the award of the learned court below seeking reduction in the compensation for the fruit and non-fruit bearing trees existing on the acquired land, whereas by filing the cross-objections, the claimants are seeking further enhancement of compensation. The facts have been extracted from RFA No. 1948 of 2004. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 8.7.1994 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”), Union Territory, Chandigarh, acquired the land situated in revenue estates of Village Palsora, U.T Chandigarh along with fruit/non- fruit bearing trees. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed R.F.A. No. 1948 of 2004 2 objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below granted 100% increase in the market value of the fruit/ non-fruit bearing trees. It is this award which is impugned by both the parties before this court. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the amount of compensation assessed by the learned court below on account of fruit/ non- fruit bearing trees existing on the acquired land, on the date of acquisition, is not just and fair considering the amount spent by the claimants on the plantation of trees and maintenance thereof. The life of the trees have also not been given due weightage. The evidence produced by the claimants on that account was totally ignored. It was further submitted that land was acquired in the year 1994 and as per the price index the claimants are entitled to 143% increase instead of 100% as granted by the learned court below. Reliance was placed on the judgments of this court in RFA No. 663 of 2004 – Union Territory, Chandigarh vs Sajjan Singh, decided on 2.8.2006 and RFA No. 727 of 2001 – Narinder Singh vs Union Territory, Chandigarh, decided on 4.2.2009. No other point was argued. On the other hand, learned counsel for Union Territory submitted that in the absence of any independent evidence on record, the claimants should not be granted any further increase on the amount as assessed by the learned Reference Court, rather, the same deserves to be reduced. In fact, the award of the Collector deserves to be upheld and the amount awarded by the learned court below be set aside. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper- book. 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 increase is concerned, the price index in the year 1985 was 124%, which had risen to 267.4% in the year 1994 when the land was acquired. Though the difference in the price index is 143, as claimed by the landowners, however, they cannot be granted increase on the value so determined by the Collector @ 143% as the differential R.F.A. No. 1948 of 2004 3 increase between 124 and 267 is 115% only. This court in RFA No. 2804 of 2008- Joginder Singh vs Union Territory, Chandigarh, decided on 10.3.2010 had upheld grant of 100% increase of non-fruit bearing trees. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Union Territory, Chandigarh, seeking reduction of the compensation from 100% do not survive and are dismissed as such. However, the landowners are granted increase @ 115% instead of 100% as granted by the learned Court below on the fruit bearing trees which is in conformity with the aforesaid judgments of this court. The cross-objections filed by them are disposed of, accordingly. 12.5.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge