Sabina, J. This order will dispose of RFA Nos. 14, 15 and 16 of 1995, as the same arise out of judgment passed by the District Judge dated 5.10.1994. By way of applications moved under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act' for short), appellants-claimants claimed enhancement of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. 2. Appellants Baldev Singh and Bhag Singh prayed that they had 298 guava trees, 6 mulberry trees and 30 eucalyptus trees standing over the acquired land. However, they had been paid compensation only qua 248 guava trees. The said appellants had been allowed only ` 77,054/- by way of compensation qua the trees, while the value of the trees came to ` 2,98,700/-. 3. Appellants Ajit Singh and Atma Singh claimed that they had been granted compensation only qua 9 Mango trees, whereas, 16 Mango trees were standing over the acquired land. They had also been granted compensation qua 60 guava trees, whereas, 90 guava trees were standing over the acquired land. They had not been paid compensation qua 8 mulberry trees. They further claimed that they had been paid only ` 43,987/- as compensation qua the trees, whereas, the market value of the trees was ` 2,46,200/-. 4. Appellant Santokh Singh claimed that he had 224 guava trees, 30 lemon trees and 50 eucalyptus trees standing over the acquired land, whereas, he had been granted compensation qua 174 guava trees and 1 mango tree. In fact, the said claimant was entitled to receive ` 2,83,100/- as compensation and had been paid only ` 54,000/-. 5. Following issues were framed by the learned District Judge:-- 1. What was the market value of the acquired trees at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. OPP. 2. Whether the applicants are entitled for enhancement in the compensation. If so, how much. OPP. 3. Relief. 6. Parties led their evidence. Learned District Judge, after appreciating the evidence on record i.e. the reports of experts and oral evidence, allowed the claim of the appellants and enhanced the amount of compensation qua the trees/super structure in question. 7. OPP. 2. Whether the applicants are entitled for enhancement in the compensation. If so, how much. OPP. 3. Relief. 6. Parties led their evidence. Learned District Judge, after appreciating the evidence on record i.e. the reports of experts and oral evidence, allowed the claim of the appellants and enhanced the amount of compensation qua the trees/super structure in question. 7. Para 29 of the award reads as under:-- To conclude the market value of the fruit bearing trees of Ajit Singh and Atma Singh is determined as ` 68,835-20, the market value of fruit bearing trees of Baldev Singh and Bhag Singh is determined as ` 1,22,124-20 P. The market value of forest trees of Ajit Singh, Atma Singh, Baldev Singh and Bhag Singh, sons of Amrik Singh is determined as ` 36,288/-. The market value of the fruit bearing trees of Santokh Singh and Jaspal Singh is determined as ` 92,885/-. The market value of the tree house/structure of Ajit Singh son of Sadhu Singh is determined as ` 22,996/-. The market value of house/structure of Hari Singh son of Gainda Singh is determined ` 23,581/-. The market value assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector was inadequate. So, the applicants are entitled to claim this much enhancement in the compensation. Hari Singh son of Nanak Singh is not entitled to claim any enhancement in the compensation. These issues are decided accordingly in favour of the applicants. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has failed to point out any error committed by the learned District Judge, while assessing the market value of the trees/super structure in question. No ground for interference by this Court is made out. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.