RFA No. 1187 of 1993 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh RFA No. 1187 of 1993 (O&M) Date of decision : 30.8.2010 Ujjagar Singh and others ..... Appellants vs The State of Punjab .... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Naresh Kaushal, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. The claimants are in appeal against the award of the learned court below seeking further enhancement of compensation for the super-structure and tubewell existing on the acquired land. Briefly, the facts are that the land situated in village Mataur, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar (now District Mohali) along with trees and superstructures, was acquired by the State Government vide notification dated 19.11.1980 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for setting up residential Urban Estate. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land as well as the value of the trees and superstructure existing thereon on the basis of value assessed by the officials of the concerned department. Aggrieved against the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned District Judge, Rupnagar, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, enhanced the compensation to ` 6,702.45 regarding superstructure. It is this award of the learned Reference Court which is impugned in the present appeal. A perusal of the impugned award shows that the claimants demanded compensation of ` 30,000/- for the superstructure and the same was assessed at ` 16,600/- by PW1 Draftsman Baljit Singh, vide his report Ex. PB. On the other hand, the respondent department examined RW1 Davinder Singh, Junior Engineer, who assessed the value of the structure at ` 6,702.45 vide his report Ex. R-1, which was later on reduced by the Executive Engineer without any basis to ` 5,557.33. When the respondent department itself assessed the compensation for the superstructure, no cut could be applied without there being any basis therefor. RFA No. 1187 of 1993 -2- In so far as demand of compensation to the tune of ` 30,000/- by the claimants on account of acquisition of superstructures is concerned, they had not placed on record any material evidence except the estimates prepared by PW1 Draftsman Baljit Singh and to the contrary the estimates are prepared by the respondent department on the basis of valuation report prepared by RW1 Davinder Singh, Junior Engineer. It is always that some rough estimate is made by applying a thumb rule and assessment in such type of cases cannot be made with mathematical exactitude. The claimants always make exorbitant claims for the superstructures, whereas the State functionaries estimate the value thereof at its lowest price. In the present appeal, the court below has granted compensation of ` 6,702.45 on the value of the super structure as a thumb rule. Considering the fact that this court in various judgments such as RFA No. 727 of 2001—Narinder Singh vs Union Territory, Chandigarh, decided on 4.2.2009, RFA No. 3921 of 2007—Arunash Chander Kaushik and others vs Union Territory, Chandigarh, decided on 10.2.2009, RFA No. 3004 of 2006—Surjit Singh vs State of Punjab and another, decided on 2.3.2009 and R.F.A. No. 2804 of 2008- Joginder Singh vs Union Territory, Chandigarh, decided on 10.3.2010, had granted 25% increase on the cost of superstructure as was assessed by the Collector, accordingly the appellants are granted increase @ 25% on the value of superstructure as has been assessed originally i.e. ` 6,702.45. The appellants shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available under the Act. The impugned award of the learned court below is modified to the extent mentioned above. Copy of this order be sent to the appellants as no one has appeared on their behalf. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. 30.8.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge