!"# $% ! $ 1. Th of award dated has enhanced Collector. 2. Le wrongly assess 3. He 4. Fr that State acqu District Ropar Land Acquisit claimant on 24 before Referen %% *+,-*+,,. /0!! "# &'$( !" ## $ " " ! %% ')(4 56 The appellant-State through instan dated 19.08.1997 whereby learned A anced amount of compensation a Learned Counsel for the state su assessed compensation qua trees. It ne Heard the argument and perused th From the perusal of record and ar e acquired landowners land situated i Ropar having six mango trees, two g cquisition Collector passed award a on 24.07.1994. Feeling dissatisfied, s eference Court. ,,.4 7$6 !!%+1(2.(1213 8((9955 8((9/ $ ' !" # instant appeal is seeking setting aside rned Additional District Judge, Ropar ion awarded by Land Acquisition ate submits that Reference Court has s. It needs to be reduced. used the record. and arguments advanced, it is evident ated in village Mataur Tehsil Kharar two guava trees and one jamun tree. ard and payment was made to the fied, section 18 petition was preferred aside Ropar isition rt has vident Kharar tree. to the ferred MOHAN LAL BIMBRA 2026.08.14 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 *+,-*+,,.4 7$6 5. Reference Court, considering evidence led by both sides and opinion of Expert-Jasbir Singh adjudicated petition vide award dated 19.08.1997 whereby a sum of ₹70,950/- along with other statutory benefits was granted. The operative portion of award reads as:- “6. In view of my findings on the above issue, the claimants are held entitled to enhancement of compensation. In all they are entitled to Rs. 70,950/- alongwith 30% solatium and other benefits under section 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Amended Act. The compensation already paid shall be adjusted. Counsel’s fee is assessed at Rs. 500/-. Memo of costs be prepared. File be consigned to the record room.” 6. The dispute before this Court is confined to assessment of compensation qua trees. There is no dispute qua market value of acquired land. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant-State could not point out any mistake in the above findings. The state has failed to point out any glaring infirmity in the order. Findings recorded by the reference Court are just, fair and equitable. There seems no infirmity in the same. The amount involved is meagre, thus, this Court finds no reason to interfere. 8. In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court is of the considered opinion that appeal deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. 9. Pending Misc. application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. & ' 4$ '6 (" " # )& * $ (" " # * $ MOHAN LAL BIMBRA 2026.08.14 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document