Judgment Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. 1. This order shall dispose of 2 appeals bearing RFA No. 1822 of 1993 titled as `Ajmer Singh and others v. The State of Punjab and RFA No. 1367 of 1993 titled as `The State of Punjab v. Ajmer Singh and others having been filed by both the claimants and the State against the award of the learned Additional District Judge, Ropar, dated 23.12.1992. However, facts of the case are being extracted from RFA No. 1822 of 1993 titled as `Ajmer Singh and others v. The State of Punjab. 2. Vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short "the Act"] dated 13.09.1985 followed by notification issued under Section 6 of the Act, land measuring 49.62 acres of village Majat, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar was acquired. The Land Acquisition Collector [for short "Collector"] gave two separate awards, one for the land i.e. award No. 61- R/SYL dated 13.03.1986 and the other for the trees standing on the land i.e. award No. 62- R/SYL dated 13.03.1986. In the present case, the dispute is with regard to the compensation awarded for trees. The Collector awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 63,598/- for fruit trees and Rs. 3,16,322.79 paise for trees other than fruit trees. The total acquired trees were 449 kinnow trees (in fact the No. is 447), 2600 eucalyptus trees and 3 shisham trees. 3. Aggrieved against award of the Collector, the claimants filed objection under Section 18 of the Act which has been decided by the learned Reference Court by the impugned order after enhancing the compensation of the trees to the tune of Rs. 19,40,327.50 paise, less the amount which has already been received by the claimants. The amount of eucalyptus trees was assessed to the tune of Rs. 13,00,000/-, whereas value of 447 kinnow trees was assessed to the tune of Rs. 6,40,327.60 paise. The learned Reference Court assessed the compensation with the following observations :- "The acquisition in this case is of the month of September 1985. There is no mention at all in this report that the classification was made according to Dr. Nijjars formula. According to Dr. Nijjar formula, various value components such as basic value, yearly income and fuel/timber value of orchard trees are summed up. There is no mention at all in this report that the classification was made according to Dr. Nijjars formula. According to Dr. Nijjar formula, various value components such as basic value, yearly income and fuel/timber value of orchard trees are summed up. Since the fruit growers have to be paid for compensation in lump sum the total yearly income (No. of remaining bearing years income per year) is multiplied by a faith. This factor has been given in table second of the report. The multiplying factor according to the year of remaining life of orchard trees is as under :- Remaining life of trees (years) Multiplying factor 1-10 2/3 11-20 1/2 21-30 1/3 Over 30 1/4 Thus the formula for compensation would be:- "basic value + (No. of remaining bearing years x income for year x multiplying factor) + fuel." The basic value for the kinnow trees in question is :- 15+60=75+Rs. 7.50p (10% matability) - Rs. 82.50p. Years (average bearing life) 25 years x 150 (yearly income) 3750/-) 3750 x 1/3 =1250 (Value of remaining years) + Rs. 82.50p (Basic Value) + Rs. 100/- (Fuel Value roughly estimated) - Value per tree Rs. 1432.50p. Value of 447 Kinnow trees Rs. 1432.50p x 447=Rs. 6,40,327.50p. 15. The ld. counsel for the applicant referred to the judgment of Sh. K.S. Kauldhar learned District Judge, Ropar copy of which is P2. He argued that it is a relevant instance in determining the value of the kinnow trees in question, as this judgment also pertains to the same acquisition dated 13.09.1985 in which the same award was given. The land of Gurmail Singh etc. in this very village Majat was acquired and their 724 Guava trees, 286 Mitha trees and 6 Kikar trees and dek trees were acquired. This judgment shows that the age of the mitha tree was proved as 1-2 years and according to Dr. Nijjars formula, the value of 286 Mitha trees was assessed Rs. 10,72,500/-. The Ld. counsel for the applicants argued that Mitha is also of citreous family like Kinnow and rather Kinnow fruit is costly, so compensation be awarded to that extent. The method of calculation has not been discussed in this judgment (P2). The calculation appears to be wrong. However, this judgment is relevant as Dr. Nijjar formula was recognized and compensation was awarded accordingly regarding fruit bearing trees. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded Rs. The method of calculation has not been discussed in this judgment (P2). The calculation appears to be wrong. However, this judgment is relevant as Dr. Nijjar formula was recognized and compensation was awarded accordingly regarding fruit bearing trees. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded Rs. 17,655/- only for 447 Kinnow trees of the applicants. The value of one tree roughly comes to Rs. 40/-. This was quite inadequate compensation based on no formula. 16. The applicants are accordingly entitled to claim Rs. 13 lacs as compensation for 2600 eucalyptus trees and Rs. 6,40,327.60 p as compensation for 447 Kinnow trees which were acquired. These issues are decided to this effect in favour of the applicants." 4. No one has come forward to argue the appeal filed by the claimants. However, the Court has considered grounds which have been taken in the memo of appeal, in which it has been alleged by the claimants that the compensation has been given for 2 crops instead of 3 crops and as the orchard is falling within 1 Kilometer from the main road and 8 Kilometers from the municipal limits, the higher amount of value of 10% should be given. Counsel for the State, while arguing the State appeal, has prayed for reduction of the amount of compensation by alleging only that the compensation has been awarded on the higher side. 5. I have heard learned State counsel and have perused the record carefully. 6. To my mind, 10% increase is not available to the claimants only for the reason that orchard is near the municipal limits or the main road because that would not, in any case, enhance the value of the trees. Insofar as the objection with regard to 3 crops is raised, learned Court below has discussed in detail Dr. Nijjars formula, which is accepted by the Courts, and on the basis thereof compensation has been enhanced with regard to eucalyptus trees from Rs. 3,16,322.79 paise to Rs. 13,00,000/- and with regard to fruit trees from Rs. 63,598/- to Rs. 6,40,327.60 paise. There is hardly any scope for further enhancement of compensation or for reducing the compensation as prayed for by the counsel for the State and as such I do not find any merit in these appeals. 3,16,322.79 paise to Rs. 13,00,000/- and with regard to fruit trees from Rs. 63,598/- to Rs. 6,40,327.60 paise. There is hardly any scope for further enhancement of compensation or for reducing the compensation as prayed for by the counsel for the State and as such I do not find any merit in these appeals. Hence, the appeal filed by the State as well as the appeal filed by the claimants are found to be without any merit and are hereby dismissed. 7. No costs.