RFA No. 2057 of 1993 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh RFA No. 2057 of 1993 (O&M) Date of decision : 23.8.2010 Rabbi Singh ..... Appellant vs The 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 claimant is in appeal against the award of the learned court below seeking further enhancement of compensation for the super-structures existing on the acquired land. Briefly, the facts are that the land along with structures situated within the revenue estate of village Mataur, Hadbast No. 7, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar, was acquired by the State Government vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for public purpose. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of the tubewell at ` 4,149/- on the basis of value assessed by the officials of the concerned department. Aggrieved against the award of the Collector, the land owner filed objections which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Rupnagar, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, awarded compensation of ` 1,000/- more to the claimant. It is this award of the learned Reference Court which is impugned in the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the State Government acquired the land of the appellant along with superstructures i.e. Tubewell, one kotah, one engine one khadda, two chabachas and khal. Inspite of leading sufficient evidence in support of his claim, the landowner was only granted a sum of ` 4,149/- by the Collector and ` 1,000/- by the court below whereas the landowner had spent more than ` 78,000/- for setting up tubewell, etc. The prayer is for enhancement of compensation. On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that sufficient compensation has been assessed by the Collector and further ` 1,000/- has been awarded by the court below on the basis of physical assessment made by the Government officials and as such no case for further enhancement is made out. RFA No. 2057 of 1993 -2- Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book. A perusal of the impugned award shows that the claimant initially demanded compensation of ` 78,000/- for the superstructures but as per the assessment made by PW1 Mohan Lal, it was assessed at ` 60,000/- vide his report Ex. P1. On the other hand, the respondent department examined RW1 Narinder Singh, Junior Engineer, who assessed the value at ` 6,549/- which was reduced to ` 4,149/- by the Executive Engineer without assigning any reason. When the respondent department itself assessed the compensation for the structure, no cut could be applied without there being any basis therefor. In so far as demand of compensation to the tune of ` 78,000/- by the claimant on account of acquisition of superstructures is concerned, they had not placed on record any material evidence except the estimates prepared by PW1 Mohan Lal and to the contrary the estimates are prepared by the respondent department on the basis of valuation report prepared by RW1 Narinder 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 additional compensation of ` 1,000/- 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 appellant is granted increase @ 25% on the value of superstructure as has been assessed originally i.e. ` 6,549/-. The appellant 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. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. 23.8.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge