R. F. A No. 1702 of 1994 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision : 25.2.2010 1. R. F. A No. 1702 of 1994 (O&M) M/s Gulati Stone Crusher, Devi Nagar ..... Appellant vs The State of Haryana ..... Respondent 2. R. F. A No. 1700 of 1994 (O&M) M/s Malwa Stone Crusher, Devi Nagar ..... Appellant vs The State of Haryana ..... Respondent 3. R. F. A No. 1703 of 1994 (O&M) M/s Haryana United Stone Crusher, Devi Nagar ..... Appellant vs The State of Haryana ..... Respondent 4. R. F. A No. 1796 of 1994 (O&M) Gita Ram ..... Appellant vs The State of Haryana ..... Respondent 5. R. F. A No. 1868 of 1994 (O&M) Raghbir Singh ..... Appellant vs The State of Haryana ..... Respondent 6. R. F. A No. 1869 of 1994 (O&M) Shiv Shakti Stone Traders ..... Appellant vs The State of Haryana ..... Respondent 7. R. F. A No. 1882 of 1994 (O&M) M/s New Shivalik Stone Crusher ..... Appellant vs The State of Haryana ..... Respondent 8. R. F. A No. 1883 of 1994 (O&M) M/s Guru Nanak Stone Crusher, Devi Nagar ..... Appellant vs The State of Haryana ..... Respondent R. F. A No. 1702 of 1994 -2- 9. R. F. A No. 1956 of 1994 (O&M) Sheela Devi and others ..... Appellants vs The State of Haryana ..... Respondent 10. R. F. A No. 2018 of 1994 (O&M) The State of Haryana ..... Appellant vs Megh Raj and company ..... Respondent 11. R. F. A No. 2019 of 1994 (O&M) The State of Haryana ..... Appellant vs M/s Mahabir Parshad and company ..... Respondent 12. R. F. A No. 2020 of 1994 (O&M) The State of Haryana ..... Appellant vs Ved Parkash and company ..... Respondent 13. R. F. A No. 2065 of 1994 (O&M) Fauzi Stone Traders ..... Appellant vs The State of Haryana ..... Respondent 14. R. F. A No. 2066 of 1994 (O&M) Subash Traders ..... Appellant vs The State of Haryana ..... Respondent 15. R. F. A No. 2067 of 1994 (O&M) Narang Singh ..... Appellant vs The State of Haryana ..... Respondent 16. R. F. A No. 2071 of 1994 (O&M) Sharma Brothers ..... Appellant vs The State of Haryana ..... Respondent 17. R. F. A No. 2072 of 1994 (O&M) Vijay Bahadur ..... Appellant vs The State of Haryana ..... Respondent R. F. A No. 1702 of 1994 -3- 18. R. F. A No. 2074 of 1994 (O&M) Gulati and sons ..... Appellant vs The State of Haryana ..... Respondent 19. R. F. A No. 2075 of 1994 (O&M) Basant Ram and sons ..... Appellant vs The State of Haryana ..... Respondent 20. R. F. A No. 2128 of 1994 (O&M) The State of Haryana ..... Appellant vs M/s Haryana United Stone Crusher ..... Respondent 21. R. F. A No. 2129 of 1994 (O&M) The State of Haryana ..... Appellant vs Sharma Brothers ..... Respondent 22. R. F. A No. 2136 of 1994 (O&M) Lal Chand ..... Appellant vs The State of Haryana ..... Respondent 23. R. F. A No. 2139 of 1994 (O&M) Megh Raj and company ..... Appellant vs The State of Haryana ..... Respondent 24. R. F. A No. 2141 of 1994 (O&M) M/s Mahabir Parshad and company ..... Appellant vs The State of Haryana ..... Respondent 25. R. F. A No. 2164 of 1994 (O&M) The State of Haryana ..... Appellant vs M/s Guru Nanak Stone Crusher ..... Respondent 26. R. F. A No. 2165 of 1994 (O&M) The State of Haryana ..... Appellant vs M/s Friends Stone Crusher ..... Respondent R. F. A No. 1702 of 1994 -4- 27. R. F. A No. 2167 of 1994 (O&M) The State of Haryana ..... Appellant vs Lal Chand ..... Respondent 28. R. F. A No. 2226 of 1994 (O&M) The State of Haryana ..... Appellant vs Fauzi Stone Traders ..... Respondent 29. R. F. A No. 2227 of 1994 (O&M) The State of Haryana ..... Appellant vs Sheela Devi and others ..... Respondents 30. R. F. A No. 2228 of 1994 (O&M) The State of Haryana ..... Appellant vs Subhash Traders ..... Respondent 31. R. F. A No. 2297 of 1994 (O&M) The State of Haryana ..... Appellant vs M/s Malva Stone Crusher ..... Respondent 32. R. F. A No. 2298 of 1994 (O&M) The State of Haryana ..... Appellant vs M/s New Shivalik Stone Crusher ..... Respondent 33. R. F. A No. 2300 of 1994 (O&M) The State of Haryana ..... Appellant vs M/s Gulati Stone Crushers ..... Respondent 34. R. F. A No. 2306 of 1994 (O&M) The State of Haryana ..... Appellant vs Narang Singh ..... Respondent 35. R. F. A No. 2324 of 1994 (O&M) M/s Friends Stone Crusher ..... Appellant vs The State of Haryana ..... Respondent R. F. A No. 1702 of 1994 -5- 36. R. F. A No. 2400 of 1994 (O&M) The State of Haryana ..... Appellant vs Gita Ram ..... Respondent 37. R. F. A No. 2405 of 1994 (O&M) The State of Haryana ..... Appellant vs Shiv Shakti Stone Traders ..... Respondent 38. R. F. A No. 2406 of 1994 (O&M) The State of Haryana ..... Appellant vs Gulati and sons ..... Respondent 39. R. F. A No. 2408 of 1994 (O&M) State of Haryana ..... Appellant vs Ramesh Kumar and company ..... Respondent 40. R. F. A No. 2589 of 1994 (O&M) The State of Haryana ..... Appellant vs Basant Ram and sons ..... Respondent 41. R. F. A No. 2590 of 1994 (O&M) The State of Haryana ..... Appellant vs Om Parkash Sahai ..... Respondent 42. R. F. A No. 2591 of 1994 (O&M) The State of Haryana ..... Appellant vs Siri Pat ..... Respondent 43. R. F. A No. 2842 of 1994 (O&M) The State of Haryana ..... Appellant vs Vijay Bahadur ..... Respondent 44. R. F. A No. 2843 of 1994 (O&M) The State of Haryana ..... Appellant vs Raghubir Singh ..... Respondent R. F. A No. 1702 of 1994 -6- 45. R. F. A No. 8 of 1995 (O&M) M/s New Anil Stone Crusher ..... Appellant vs The State of Haryana ..... Respondent 46. R. F. A No. 178 of 1995 (O&M) Saraswati Stone Crusher ..... Appellant vs The State of Haryana ..... Respondent 47. R. F. A No. 179 of 1995 (O&M) M/s Dhilon Stone Crusher ..... Appellant vs The State of Haryana ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate, for the claimants. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of the aforesaid appeals, as the same arise out of common acquisition. The claimants are in appeal before this court against the award of the learned court below seeking further enhancement of compensation for the superstructures existing on the acquired land where as the State is seeking reduction in the compensation. The facts have been extracted from RFA. No. 1702 of 1994. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the State of Haryana vide notification dated 31.8.1987 issued under Section 4 the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, acquired land alongwith superstructure existing thereon, situated in Village Devi Nagar, District Ambala (now District Panchkula), for public purpose namely for the development and utilisation thereof as recreational and commercial area for Sector-3, Urban Estate, Panchkula. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, “the Collector”) awarded Rs. 58,161/- as compensation for the superstructure existing on the acquired land, Rs. 47,750/- on account of loss of business and Rs. 15,000/- on account of shifting charges. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the claimant filed reference before the learned court below. The learned Additional District Judge, while considering the material on record, set aside the deduction @ 20% made by the valuer in estimates prepared as there was no justification found R. F. A No. 1702 of 1994 -7- for the same and awarded Rs. 14,540/- more on account of market value of the structure existing on the acquired land and Rs. 10,000/- as compensation on account of shifting charges. It is this award, which is impugned in the present appeal. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the amount of compensation assessed by the learned court below on account of superstructures existing on the acquired land, on the date of acquisition, is not just and fair considering the amount spent by the claimants on the construction. The evidence produced by the claimants on that account was totally ignored. It was further submitted that on account of loss of business, the amount of compensation as has been granted by the learned court below is highly inadequate. It is a case where the claimants were earning their livelihood by carrying on business at the place which was acquired and on account of that they lost their means of income. It was further argued that the award of the learned court below is inadequate and the claimants are entitled to further enhancement on all counts. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that in the absence of any independent evidence on record, the claimants should not be granted any further increase on the amount as assessed by the learned Reference Court, rather, the same deserves to be reduced. In fact, the award of the Collector deserves to be upheld and the amount awarded by the learned court below be set aside. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book. As far as compensation assessed by the learned court below on account of acquisition of superstructures on the acquired land is concerned, it is always that some rough estimate is made by applying a thumb rule. The assessment in such cases cannot be made with mathematical precision. The fact is that the claimants always make exorbitant claims for the superstructures whereas the State estimates the value thereof at its lowest price. Hence, there is force in the submission of the learned counsel for the claimants that the learned Reference Court has granted only the amount, which was arbitrarily reduced by the valuer in estimates prepared and had not granted any further increase. The compensation granted by the learned court below is not in conformity with the judgments of this Court, wherein it has been opined that the land owners are entitled to increase @ 25% on the value of the super structure as a thumb rule. Reference in this regard can be made to judgments of this court in RFA No. 663 of 2004- Union Territory, Chandigarh vs Sajjan Singh, decided on 2.8.2006, RFA No. 579 of 2006 Smt. Akko Devi and others vs Union Territory, Chandigarh and another, decided on R. F. A No. 1702 of 1994 -8- 1.10.2008, RFA No. 1990 of 2002- Bhagwan Kaur and others vs The Punjab State and another decided on 4.12.2008, 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, and RFA No. 3004 of 2006 Surjit Singh vs State of Punjab and another decided on 2.3.2009. Accordingly, the appellant is granted increase of 25% on the value as assessed by the learned court below for superstructure only. The appellant shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available under the Act. As far as grant of compensation on account of loss of business is concerned, in the absence of any clinching evidence on record, and the kind of business which was being carried on by the appellants, I do not find any ground is made out for enhancement on that count. Accordingly, the award of the learned court below on that count is upheld. In so far as further enhancement on account of shifting charges is concerned, the learned court below after considering the material available with it granted sufficient increase which does not call any interference. The award of the court below is also upheld in this regard. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms. 25.2.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge