RFA No. 214 of 1997 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 214 of 1997 (O&M) Date of decision :1.9.2010 Punjab State Electricity Board ... Appellant vs Harkamal Singh and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. M. L. Saini, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Satbir Rathore, Advocate, for the respondents. Rajesh Bindal J. The Punjab State Electricity Board is in appeal before this Court against the award passed by learned court below seeking reduction in the amount of compensation awarded to the respondents on account of acquisition of land. Briefly, the facts are that State of Punjab vide notification dated 15.1.1985 published on 25.1.1985 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') acquired land along with fruit/non-fruit bearing trees situated in the revenue estate of Village Terkiana, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur, for construction of Mukerian Hydel Channel Project Talwara by the Punjab State Electricity Board. The Land Acquisition Collector announced his award on 8.1.1988. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners/claimants filed objections which were referred to the learned Court below for consideration. The learned court below vide award dated 8.8.1994, on the basis of judgment of this court in RFA No. 243 of 1990 titled as The State of Punjab vs Bhagwanti and others, decided on 19.7.1991, determined the market value of the land at ` 74,400/- per acre for chahi kind of land and compensation of ` 15,582.81 paise was awarded on account of acquisition of trees. It is this award which is impugned in the present appeal. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the court below had assessed the market value of the acquired land on the basis of judgment of this court in Bhagwanti's case (supra). Accordingly, no interference is called for regarding determination of market value of the acquired land. RFA No. 214 of 1997 (2) As regards the compensation on account of acquisition of trees is concerned, the court below had granted only a sum of ` 15,582.81 paise. The acquisition in the present case was carried out about 24 years back. Keeping in view the fact that the amount involved in the present appeal is merely ` 15,582.81 paise and the acquisition took place more than 24 years back, I do not find any reason to interfere therein at this stage. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. 1.9.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge