RFA No. 1735 of 2005 (O&M) -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh RFA No. 1735 of 2005 (O&M) Date of decision : 12.8.2010 Dharam Singh ..... Appellant vs State of Punjab .... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Naresh Kaushal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. The land owner is in appeal against the award of the learned court below seeking further enhancement of compensation for the super-structure, tubewell and trees existing on the acquired land. Briefly, the facts are that the land situated in village Sohana, District Ropar (now District Mohali) along with trees and structure, was acquired by the State Government vide notification dated 11.11.1993, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for use for Industrial purpose. 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 Additional District Judge, Rupnagar, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, enhanced the compensation to ` 6,500/- regarding structure. The claimant was also awarded compensation of ` 9,000/- instead of 7,190/- with regard to tubewell/bore and additional compensation of ` 1,000/- regarding fruit bearing trees. It is this award of the learned Reference Court which is impugned in the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned court below has not appreciated the evidence produced on record by the appellant. The structure was consisting of five pucca rooms, verandah, boundary wall and hand pump. It was also submitted that the appellant was running milk diary in the premises in question but with the acquisition, his business was closed and no amount regarding loss of business was awarded. It was submitted that the amount of compensation assessed by the learned court below for the superstructures RFA No. 1735 of 2005 (O&M) -2- existing on the acquired land on the date of acquisition, is not just and fair, considering the amount spent by him on the construction. The evidence produced by the appellants on that account was totally ignored. It was further argued that compensation granted to the appellant on account of acquisition of superstructures is less and he should be granted at least 50% enhancement. Regarding closer of business, ` 15/- lacs were demanded as compensation. Further it was submitted that firstly the value of the tubewell which was installed in the year 1991 has been assessed at a very low and thereafter the deductions made by the Collector. The prayer was for grant of entire claimed compensation. Regarding fruit bearing trees it was submitted by the learned counsel for the claimant that the amount of compensation assessed by the learned court below on account of fruit bearing trees existing on the acquired land, on the date of acquisition, is not just and fair considering the amount spent by the claimant on the plantation of trees and maintenance thereof. The life of the trees have also not been given due weightage. The evidence produced by the claimants on that account was totally ignored. It was further submitted that land was acquired in the year 1993 and as per the price index the claimants are entitled to increase @ 115%. On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that the learned court below has awarded just and fair compensation. As regards valuation of superstructure is concerned, he submitted that in the absence of any independent evidence on record, the land owners should not be granted any further increase on the amount as assessed by the learned Reference Court, rather, the same deserves to be reduced. It was submitted that the learned court below has granted sufficient increase on the value of superstructures as assessed by the Collector, which does not call for any enhancement. Considering the time gap of installation of tubewell, the court below has rightly applied cut. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. In so far as compensation assessed by the learned court below on account of acquisition of superstructures is concerned, it is always that some rough estimate is made by applying a thumb rule and assessment in such 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 additional compensation of ` 6,500/- 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 RFA No. 1735 of 2005 (O&M) -3- 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 appellant is granted increase @ 25% on the value of superstructure as has been assessed by the Collector. As far as grant of compensation regarding the acquisition of tubewell is concerned, the cut applied by the officials of the Government as reduced by the court below is not justified. The price of raw material increases day by day. Accordingly, the appellant is granted full amount as was assessed by the officials of the department without applying any cut. It is not in dispute that though the court below has referred to Dr. Nijjar's formula, which is judicially accepted in number of judgments, and applied the same, however, the correct appreciation according to the price index, for the period from 1985 till the date of acquisition, was not granted to the landowners. As regards percentage of increase is concerned, the price index in the year 1985 was 127.2, which had risen to 242.4 in the year 1993 when the land was acquired. Though the difference in the price index is 115.2, however, he cannot be granted such an increase as the difference between 127.2 and 242.4 is 115.2 only which is increase of about 90% from 1985 to 1993. Accordingly, the landowner is granted increase @ 90% on the fruit bearing trees. The appellant shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits available under the Act. The impugned award of the learned court below is modified to the extent mentioned above. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. 12.8.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge