JUDGMENT S. S. Sidhu, F. C. (A).—Shri Kashmir Singh and others have filed this revision petition under section 20 (2) of the H. P. Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter called as the Act) against the order dated 7-3-1988 of the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, whereby he dismissed an appeal filed against the order dated 24-1-1986 of the Sub-Divisional Collector, Sarkaghat. 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the Sub-Divisional Collector, Sarkaghat vide his order dated 24-1-1986 denied the award of additional compensation to the petitioners in respect of the value of trees assessed at Rs. 13,09,078, standing on the land of the petitioners declared surplus, on the ground that the trees were not crop within the meaning of sub-section (4) of section 14 of the Act. The appeal of the petitioners before the learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, did not succeed since he relied upon the findings given by Shri P. K. Mattoo, Financial Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh, in his order dated 24-7-1976, passed in revision petition No. 7/76, as a result the order dated 24-1-1986 of the Sub-Divisional Collector, Sarkaghat was upheld by him Feeling aggrieved by the orders of Revenue Officers below, the petitioners have come in revision before us. During the pendency of the revision petition, one of the petitioners, Smt Surju Devi expired and at the request of the petitioners, her name was deleted from the array of the petitioners since her legal heirs were already on the record. 3. The petitioners as well as the learned District Attorney (Revenue) on behalf of the State have tendered written arguments, which have been placed on the record. . I have very carefully gone through the record of the case and written arguments furnished by the petitioners and the learned District Attorney. The petitioners have stated that the learned Divisional Commissioner based his decision on the judgment of the Financial Commissioner. Himachal Pradesh, which he took "binding on the lower Revenue Courts in Himachal Pradesh and as such he did not go deep into the matter himself. It was also stated that Shri P. K. Mattoo, Financial Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh, had based his decision on the case titled "Divisional Forest Officer, Sarahan Forest Division and mothers. Daut and others", reported in AIR 1963 SC p. 612, which was a case under the H. P Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1954. It was also stated that Shri P. K. Mattoo, Financial Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh, had based his decision on the case titled "Divisional Forest Officer, Sarahan Forest Division and mothers. Daut and others", reported in AIR 1963 SC p. 612, which was a case under the H. P Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1954. The petitioners expressed the view that this ruling pertains to the tenancy land only and does not hold good in the forest land m the exclusive ownership and possession of the petitioners. The written arguments of the petitioners are very elaborate and cover those issues which are not very relevant to the issue, which is for determination before us The issue for determination before us in this case is whether the trees standing on the surplus land of the petitioners fall within the definition of crop and the entitlement of the petitioners to the compensation for the trees standing on the surplus land, which has vested in the State Government or in the alternative the petitioners are entitled to remove the trees from the surplus area. The learned District Attorney based his reliance on the order dated 24-7-1976 passed by our learned predecessor, Shri P. K. Mattoo, Financial Commissioner, in revision No. 7/76 titled "Raj Kumar Ashokpal Singh S/o Raja Joginder Sen v. State of Himachal Pradesh. He also cited AIR 1966 Ker 72 wherein it was held by the Kerala High Court that the trees cannot possibly be considered as a crop or other product raised on the land. 4. After going through the provisions of the Act, we find that the word crop’ has not been defined in the Act. As such, we have to go to other source to find the meaning of the word crop . For this we will be placing reliance on the order passed by Shri P. K. Mattoo, Financial Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh, in revision No, 7/76. The definition of the word crop in Venkataramaiyas Law Lexicon, Volume I, 1971, page 277 is as "corn, hay and such other produce as can be cut and stored up" According to Venkataramaiya, trees cannot possibly be considered as "crop or other product raised on land" must be what is familiarly known in the law as "emblements". The definition of the word crop in Venkataramaiyas Law Lexicon, Volume I, 1971, page 277 is as "corn, hay and such other produce as can be cut and stored up" According to Venkataramaiya, trees cannot possibly be considered as "crop or other product raised on land" must be what is familiarly known in the law as "emblements". Venkataramaiya has also quoted Blacks Law Dictionary, which defines the word crop or emblements as "such products of the soil as are annually planted, severed and saved by manual labour, as cereals, vegetables, grass maturing for harvest or harvested etc. but not grass on lands used for pasturage". Kerala High Court has also held in the case cited above that the trees cannot possibly be considered as "crop or other product raised on land". The word crop has been defined in Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1959) at pace 426 as "the annual produce of plants grown or gathered for food ; the produce of the field, either while growing or when gathered". Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary defines the word crop’ as "the top or end of anything as a tree or twig : a cultivated plant, collectively that which is produced at a time, a growth, supply ; a seasons yield?........." By no stretch of imagination standing trees can be described as a crop The standing trees are generally treated as immovable property. The Oxford Companion to Law defines fructus industrials as "crops which do not spring up naturally but are the products of cultivation and labour." From this it can be inferred that trees which grow naturally cannot be treated as crop In " Divisional Forest Officer, Sarahan Forest Division and another v. Daut and others", AIR 1968 SC p. 612, a case under the H. P. Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, it has been held that the expression right, title and interest of landowner in the land under section II is wide enough to include trees standing on the land. Under Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act, unless a different intention is expressed or implied, transfer of land would include trees standing on it. Section 11 of the Act should be construed in the same manner. The payment of compensation is to be made according to the provisions of section 14 of the Act and the provisions of Land Acquisition Act cannot be invoked. Section 11 of the Act should be construed in the same manner. The payment of compensation is to be made according to the provisions of section 14 of the Act and the provisions of Land Acquisition Act cannot be invoked. Under the Land Acquisition Act, the State Government acquire land of private owners for public purposes but under the H P Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, the land has been declared as surplus and vested in the State. As such, payment of compensation is to be made according to the provisions of the Act, The rulings cited by the petitioners are not applicable in the present case. 5. In view of the discussion above, we are of the opinion that the trees standing on the land declared surplus are not crop within the meaning of sub section (4) of section 14 of the Act. As a result, the revision petition does not succeed and the petitioners are neither entitled to any compensation in terms of sub-section (4) of section 14 of the Act in respect of the trees standing on the surplus area nor they are entitled to remove these trees from the said area. Accordingly, the revision petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed. Order be communicated to the parties. Revision petition dismissed.