R. F. A No. 3240 of 1993 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision : 22.4.2009 1. R. F. A No. 3240 of 1993 (O&M) Mohinder Singh and others ..... Appellants vs The State of Punjab and another ..... Respondents 2. R. F. A No. 3334 of 1993 (O&M) The State of Punjab and another ..... Appellants vs Mohinder Singh and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. J. S. Wasu, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kulwant Singh, Advocate, for the landowners. Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of Regular First Appeal No. 3240 of 1993 filed by the landowners for further enhancement of compensation for the trees standing on the acquired land and RFA No. 3334 of 1993 has been filed by the State for reduction thereof. Both are taken up together as the same award has been impugned. The facts have been extracted from R. F. A. No. 3240 of 1993. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the State of Punjab acquired land within the revenue estate of Village Pawala, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, for Sutlej Yamuna Canal Project. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation for the trees standing on the acquired land on 28.9.1987. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 29.5.1993, determined the compensation at Rs. 18,612/-. It is this award which is impugned in the present set of appeals. Learned counsel for the landowners does not dispute that the amount of compensation as has been assessed by the learned Reference court for fruit bearing trees was as per Dr. Nijjar's formula. However, he submits that Dr. Nijjar's formula does not take care of the fact that substantial amount is spent for making the land fit for planting fruit bearing trees for which the landowners deserve to be compensated. However, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. For the purpose of valuation of fruit bearing trees standing on the acquired land Dr. R. F. A No. 3240 of 1993 -2- Nijjar's formula is accepted regularly by the courts. In the present case also, Dr. Nijjar's formula has been applied. Accordingly, the submission of the learned counsel for the landowners that in addition thereto for development of land extra compensation be paid is totally misconceived, hence rejected. As far as the appeal filed by the State is concerned, the amount as has been assessed is merely 18,612/-. The dispute is sought to be raised for the acquisition which was carried out 27 years back. I do not find any reason to interfere in the meager amount if there is some difference. The appeals are dismissed. 22.4.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge