IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RFA No.4621 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.10.2011 Punjab State & others -----Appellants Vs. Keshab & another -----Respondents and another connected case being RFA No.4622 of 2011 (O&M) Punjab State & others -----Appellants Vs. Anchal Singh -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present:- Mr. Praveen Chander Goyal, Advocate for the appellants. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. This judgment shall dispose of two appeals i.e. RFA Nos.4621 and 4622 of 2011, as common question of law on RFA No.4621 of 2011 similar facts and against one common award has arisen in both these appeals. There is delay of 76 and 77 days in filing of these appeals. Since these appeals are being decided on merits, the question of condoning the delay does not survive. The compensation for the super-structures of the respondent-claimants was assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer, RSD Project, Shahpurkandi, Tehsil Dhar Kalan, District Gurdaspur vide his award dated 25.8.1998. Dissatisfied from the said award on the ground that the compensation was inadequate, the respondents filed reference applications which were referred to the Reference Court. Before the Reference Court, the respondents have submitted that their pucca houses were existing on the acquired land and the compensation assessed for the super-structures was grossly inadequate and much below the market value. The Land Acquisition Collector had made the payment after applying a cut of about 60% on the report of the assessing authorities, which is unreasonable and without any justification and thus, they were entitled to enhanced compensation. The claim of the respondents was contested by the appellant-State stating that the compensation was awarded keeping in view the relevant factors and was justified and proper. Before the Reference Court, the appellant-State relied upon report Exh.R-3, according to which, a sum of `1,24,674.63/- was 2 RFA No.4621 of 2011 assessed as compensation for the super-structures of the respondents by the assessing authorities, whereas as per the report of the expert produced by the respondent-claimants, the market value of the super-structures at the time of acquisition was `2,44,946.64. The Reference Court after considering both the reports and all the facts and circumstances of the case, determined the market value of the super-strutures at rupees two lacs and twenty five thousand. Challenging the aforesaid award, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-State submitted that the compensation for the super-structures, as assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector, was just and proper and the Reference Court has erred in law while assessing the market value of the super-structures on the basis of the report of expert produced by the respondent-claimants and in absence of any corroborative evidence, the same should not have been accepted. The argument raised is without any basis. It is absolutely clear that even the departmental assessment made by the appellants itself was much more than the amount of compensation as granted by the Land Acquisition Collector. Not only this, there is not an iota of evidence to challenge the report of the expert produced by the respondent-claimants. It is also not the case of the appellants that the report of the expert produced by the claimants is not admissible in evidence. 3 RFA No.4621 of 2011 In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find that the amount of compensation, as assessed by the Reference Court is just and proper and no interference is called for with the same. No other point was argued. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected case. October 17, 2011 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ak JUDGE 4