R. F. A No. 1252 of 2009 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision : 5.3.2010 1. R. F. A No. 1252 of 2009 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Appellant vs Nachhattar Singh ..... Respondent 2. R. F. A No. 1106 of 2005 (O&M) Matu Ram ..... Appellant vs Union of India ..... Respondent 3. R. F. A No. 3381 of 2006 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Appellant vs Gurmeet Kaur and others ..... Respondents 4. R. F. A No. 3382 of 2006 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Appellant vs Gurmeet Kaur and another ..... Respondents 5. R. F. A No. 3383 of 2006 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Appellant vs Mann Singh and another ..... Respondents 6. R. F. A No. 82 of 2007 (O&M) Gurmeet Kaur and another ..... Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 7. R. F. A No. 83 of 2007 (O&M) Gurmeet Kaur and others ..... Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 8. R. F. A No. 84 of 2007 (O&M) Mann Singh and another ..... Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent R. F. A No. 1252 of 2009 -2- 9. R. F. A No. 1789 of 2007 (O&M) Gurmeet Singh and another ..... Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 10. R. F. A No. 5251 of 2008 (O&M) Gurmukh Singh ..... Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 11. R. F. A No. 5252 of 2008 (O&M) Surjan Singh and another ..... Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 12. R. F. A No. 5253 of 2008 (O&M) Hari Singh ..... Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 13. R. F. A No. 5765 of 2008 (O&M) Sher Singh and others ..... Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 14. R. F. A No. 5768 of 2008 (O&M) Ranjit Kaur ..... Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 15. R. F. A No. 39 of 2009 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Appellant vs Sukhwinder Singh ..... Respondent 16. R. F. A No. 40 of 2009 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Appellant vs Dalbir Singh and another ..... Respondents 17. R. F. A No. 41 of 2009 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Appellant vs Dara Singh ..... Respondent R. F. A No. 1252 of 2009 -3- 18. R. F. A No. 42 of 2009 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Appellant vs Hari Singh ..... Respondent 19. R. F. A No. 43 of 2009 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Appellant vs Manvir Singh ..... Respondent 20. R. F. A No. 44 of 2009 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Appellant vs Gurmukh Singh ..... Respondent 21. R. F. A No. 45 of 2009 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Appellant vs Sher Singh and others ..... Respondents 22. R. F. A No. 46 of 2009 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Appellant vs Sher Singh ..... Respondent 23. R. F. A No. 47 of 2009 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Appellant vs Nachhattar Singh ..... Respondent 24. R. F. A No. 48 of 2009 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Appellant vs Ranjit Kaur ..... Respondent 25. R. F. A No. 49 of 2009 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Appellant vs Sudershan Shastri ..... Respondent 26. R. F. A No. 1250 of 2009 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Appellant vs Gurmit Singh and another ..... Respondents R. F. A No. 1252 of 2009 -4- 27. R. F. A No. 1251 of 2009 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Appellant vs Surjan Singh and another ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Mr. Vishal Sodhi, Mrs. Lisa Gill and Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocates, for Union Territory, Chandigarh. Mr. P. C. Dhiman and R. K. Dhiman, Advocates, for the landowners. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of the aforesaid appeals, as the same arise out of common notification. The Union Territory, Chandigarh has filed the present appeal seeking reduction in the compensation granted for the superstructure existed on the acquired land whereas the landowners have approached this court seeking further enhancement. The facts have been extracted from RFA No. 1252 of 2009. Briefly, the facts are that the land in Village Jhumru (Chandigarh) was acquired vide notification dated 15.5.1998 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for development of Sectors 48 and 49 Chandigarh. The Land Acquisition Collector determined the compensation payable for the superstructures existing on the acquired land. Aggrieved against the award, the landowners filed objections which were referred to the learned Reference Court, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, partly accepted the same by granting increase of 25% on the value as assessed at PWD rates. It is this order which is challenged before this court. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the parties that the learned court below had granted 25% increase on the compensation for acquisition of superstructures on the rate determined by PWD which is admittedly in conformity with judgment of this court in RFA No. 579 of 2006 Smt. Akko Devi and others vs Union Territory, Chandigarh and another, decided on 1.10.2008. Therefore, no case for reduction or further increase is made out. Accordingly, all the appeals are dismissed except RFA No. 1106 of 2005. R. F. A No. 1252 of 2009 -5- In so far as RFA No. 1106 of 2005 is concerned, the learned court below has not granted any increase rather it has dismissed the reference on the ground that the claimant had failed to prove the market value of his superstructures on the date of acquisition. It has been consistent opinion of this court that in the absence of any expertise available with the court to determine the value of the super structure with minute details, as it is always seen that the land owners try to claim much more amount as compared to the actual value and on the other hand, the State makes conservative estimate on the basis of set principles, an increase of 25% on the value so assessed by the Collector is granted as a thumb rule. Accordingly, RFA No. 1106 of 2005 is disposed of with the direction that for the super structure existing on the acquired land, the land owner shall be entitled to additional amount of 25% over and above the value of the super structure as assessed by the Collector. He shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available under the Act. 5.3.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge