R.F.A. No. 1944 of 2001 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision : 20.7.2010 1. R.F.A. No. 1944 of 2001 (O&M) Naranjan Singh ..... Appellant Versus The State of Punjab and others ..... Respondents 2. R.F.A. No. 1945 of 2001 (O&M) Dilbagh Singh and others ..... Appellants Versus The State of Punjab and another ..... Respondents 3. R.F.A. No. 1946 of 2001 (O&M) Bakhshish Singh and others ..... Appellants Versus The State of Punjab and others ..... Respondents 4. R.F.A. No. 1947 of 2001 (O&M) Smt. Parkash Kaur and others ..... Appellants Versus The State of Punjab and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Arun Palli, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sunil Garg, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. The landowners are in appeal before this court against the award of the learned court below seeking enhancement of compensation for the fruit bearing trees existing on the acquired land. The facts have been extracted from RFA No. 1944 of 2001. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification issued in the year 1991 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”), the State of Punjab, acquired the land situated in revenue estate of Village Randhawa along with superstructures, fruit/non-fruit bearing R.F.A. No. 1944 of 2001 2 trees. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, “the Collector”) awarded compensation vide his award dated 5.3.1991. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below granted 20% increase over and above the compensation as assessed by the Collector for the fruit bearing trees. It is this award which is impugned in the present set of appeals. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the amount of compensation assessed by the learned court below on account of 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 has also not been given due weightage. The evidence produced by the claimants on that account was totally ignored. The formula which is the basis for valuation of price of the tree was evolved in the year 1985. The price index in the year 1985 was 124. It was further submitted that land was acquired in the year 1991 and the price index in the year 1991 was 201. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to increase as per price index. 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. On the other hand, learned counsel for State 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. No other point was argued. 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 201% in the year 1991 when R.F.A. No. 1944 of 2001 3 the land was acquired. Though the difference in the price index is 77, but the percentage increase is 60%, which deserved to be granted to the landowners as against 20% as assessed by the learned court below. Accordingly, the impugned award of the learned court below is modified to the extant that on the value of the fruit bearing trees as assessed as per Dr. Nijjar's formula, the landowner shall be granted increase @ 62%. The landowners shall be entitled to all statutory benefits as available under the Act. The appeals are disposed of. 20.7.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge