R.F.A. No. 2042 of 1994 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 2042 of 1994 (O&M) Date of Decision: 24.9.2010 Bachan Singh and others .... Appellants vs State of Punjab .... Respondent Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- None for the appellants. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. RAJESH BINDAL, J The land owners are in appeal before this Court against the award of the learned court below passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') seeking enhancement in compensation for the trees existing on the acquired land. Briefly, the facts of the case are that land along with trees, superstructure belonging to the appellants situated in village Mataur, Hadbast No. 7, District Ropar (Now District Mohali) was acquired by the State of Punjab, for public purpose, vide notification dated 19.11.1980 published on 20.11.1980 under Section 4 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') vide award dated 10.10.1988 assessed the value of the trees. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the claimants filed objections, which were referred to learned Additional District Judge, Ropar. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 11.4.1994 assessed the compensation at ` 20,000/-. It is this award which is impugned in the present appeal. No one has appeared for the appellants at the time of hearing. A perusal of the impugned award shows that the learned court below had not committed any illegality while awarding compensation for the trees. Though in the claim petition, the appellants claimed ` 46,000/- as compensation on account of acquisition of 32 trees of the age of 8 to 12 years, however, in the evidence led, the appellants claimed compensation of ` 64,300/- for 10 trees of the age of 10 to 45 years. On the other hand, the respondent produced statement no. 19 to show that only nine trees were acquired, however, the age of the trees were not R.F.A. No. 2042 of 1994 -2- given. It is always that some rough estimate is made by applying a thumb rule and assessment in such type of cases cannot be made with mathematical exactitude. The claimants always make exorbitant claims for their belongings, whereas the State functionaries estimate the value thereof at its lowest price. The appellants had given contradictory two statements to claim compensation for the acquired trees. In view of different stand of the appellants themselves, the court below had rightly not given credibility to the evidence led by them. In the present appeal, the court below has granted compensation of ` 20,000/- for the trees as a thumb rule, which in my view, is not on lower side. However, as no one has appeared for the appellants, the appeal is dismissed in default. 24.9.2010. (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge