R.F.A. No. 483 of 1989 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 483 of 1989(O&M) Date of Decision: 22.9.2010 Swaran Singh .... Appellant vs The State of Punjab and another .... Respondents Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate, for the landowners. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. RAJESH BINDAL, J The land owner is in appeal before this Court against the award of the learned court below passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') seeking enhancement in compensation for superstructure existing on the acquired land. Briefly, the facts of the case are that land along with superstructure belonging to the appellant was acquired by the State of Punjab vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') vide award dated 29.4.1987 assessed the value of the superstructures at ` 14,583.20 paise. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the claimant filed objections, which were referred to the learned District Judge, Ropar. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 12.12.1988 assessed the compensation for the superstructure at ` 20,000/-. It is this award which is impugned in the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that fair amount of compensation has not been assessed by the learned court below for the superstructure. The evidence produced on record by him has been totally ignored. Prayer is for enhancement of compensation for the superstructures. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that considering the evidence led by the parties, the court below had awarded just and fair compensation which does not call for any further enhancement. The prayer is for dismissal of appeal. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. R.F.A. No. 483 of 1989 -2- A perusal of the impugned award shows that the learned court below had not committed any illegality while awarding compensation for the superstructures. Though in the claim petition, the appellant claimed ` 80,000/- as compensation on account of superstructure, however, in the evidence led, the value shown was ` 55,933.30 paise. In view of the exhorbitant claim, the court below had rightly not given credibility to the evidence led. The State had examined S.O. Upinder Singh-RW1, who produced his report Ex. R1. But the court below rejected his report and awarded ` 20,000/- as compensation applying a thumb rule on the basis of estimation. In the absence of any positive evidence to hold that the assessment as was made by the court below was not just and fair, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 22.9.2010. (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge