RFA No.2026 of 1989 - 1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No.2026 of 1989 Date of Decision: 12.5.2008 Bhoop Singh ..Appellant Vs. The State of Punjab ..Respondent A N D RFA No.805 of 1994 The State of Punjab ..Appellant. Vs. Bhoop Singh ..Respondent. CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN * * * Present: Ms.Deepa Dubey, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.P.C.Goyal, Sr.DAG Punjab for the respondent. * * * Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. This order shall dispose of RFA Nos.2026 of 1989 and 805 of 1994 as both the appeals have been filed against the same award passed by District Judge, Patiala dated 18.5.1989 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. However, the facts have been taken from RFA No.2026 of 1989. Vide notification dated 15.1.1976 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the `Act') land measuring 53.76 acres in the area of village Tafazalpura was acquired for the public purpose RFA No.2026 of 1989 - 2- namely, setting up of an Urban Estate at public expenses. Super-structure existing at the spot at the time of acquisition, too were acquired and its value was determined by the Land Acquisition Collector vide supplementary Award No.415 of 25.2.1983. Dissatisfied with the award, application under Section 18 of the Act was filed by the claimant-appellant before the Collector, which was referred to the Civil Court. The appellant had put up a claim of Rs.70,000/- which was opposed by the respondents and had alleged that the amount of compensation which has been awarded by the Collector, is based upon the report of XEN, Public Health. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed : 1. Whether the compensation awarded for the house in dispute is inadequate and, if so, to what extent ? OPA. 2. Relief. After considering both oral as well as documentary evidence led by both the parties, District Judge, Patiala assessed market value of the super-structure @ Rs.30,000/- by enhancing the compensation which was awarded @ Rs.15,000/- by the Collector in his award. Counsel for the appellant has argued that even Rs.30,000/- is inadequate and has made emphasis on the statement of PW1 Vidya Sagar draftsman, who had assessed the value of the super-structure at Rs.41,453/-. On the contrary, counsel for the respondent relied upon the testimony of RW1 Balwinder Singh, who vide his assessment report had assessed the value of super-structure @ Rs.15,000/-. I have heard the counsel for both the parties and have perused the record. The notification under Section 4 was issued in the year 1976 RFA No.2026 of 1989 - 3- whereas admittedly PW1 Vidya Sagar claims to have visited the super- structure on 19.8.1981 i.e. at shelter stage. The Court below had found that the value of super-structure was assessed by PWD Authority i.e. by RW1, who vide his report Ex.R1 had stated that there were five rooms, kitchen, bath-room, verandah & tank etc. and assessed value of Rs.15,000/- which was found to be on the lower side and as such, keeping in view the extent of super-structure, its value was enhanced to Rs.30,000/- which was exactly double the amount as awarded by the Collector. Counsel for the appellant although, argued vehemently but failed to find any fault with the award dated 18.5.1989 passed by District Judge, Patiala who has already enhanced the compensation twice the amount which was awarded by the Collector. In my view, the compensation that has been awarded is adequate and does not call for any enhancement. Similarly, counsel for the respondent could not point out any error much less legal in the assessment of the compensation awarded by the Court below who had taken into consideration the extent of construction and found the amount awarded by the Collector to be on the lower side. In view of the discussion made here-in-above, both the appeals are hereby dismissed being without merit. No order as to costs. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 12.5.2008 Judge Meenu