R. F. A No. 5013 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R. F. A No. 5013 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 11.11.2008 Punjab State and another ... Appellants vs Shamsher Singh and others .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. B. B. S. Teji, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. The State is in appeal against the award of the learned court below whereby on account of acquisition of trees standing on the acquired land, compensation payable therefor has been enhanced from Rs. 2725/- to Rs. 12,000/-. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 2.8.1982, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), the State of Punjab, acquired land in the revenue estate of Village Bhatoli, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur. The Land Acquisition Collector vide award dated 23.11.1983 assessed the value of the acquired land. However, the award in respect of the trees has been given on 2.8.1988. 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 15.3.2008, enhanced the compensation for the acquisition of trees from Rs. 2,725/- to Rs. 12,000/-. A perusal of the impugned award shows that at the time of acquisition of land, the trees were 15-20 years old. The Land Acquisition Collector determined the value of the acquired trees merely at Rs. 2,,725/-. On perusal of the material placed on record, the learned court below enhanced the same to Rs. 12,000/-. It was on the basis of evaluation report submitted by the landowners which was prepared by Jasbir Singh, Retired Deputy Director, Horticulture Department, Punjab. In his statement, it was submitted that the report was prepared on the basis of Dr. Nijjer's formula R. F. A No. 5013 of 2008 2 for the purpose of evaluation of age and life of the trees at the time of acquisition. As against this, in the evidence led by the State, it was submitted that the inspection of the trees was carried out in the year 1986, which could not be fully proved on record, as no presence memo was prepared at the time of visit. Even the land on which the alleged trees were standing had not been identified. The reports of estimates Ex. R-1 to R-6 placed on record were also not proved for the reason that it contains signatures of Shri P. S. Hira but he was not examined. It was with this material produced on record by the State which did not inspire full confidence that the learned court below had to apply thumb rule considering the number of trees and the life thereof and enhanced the compensation from Rs. 2,725/- to Rs. 12,000/-, which cannot be said to be on the higher side. In view of my above discussion, the appeal is dismissed. 11.11.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge