R.F.A. No. 433 of 1995 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 433 of 1995 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.12.2010 Balkar Singh .. Appellant v. The State of Punjab and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. B. R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Brijeshwar Singh Kanwar, Advocate for Union of India. ... Rajesh Bindal J. The land owner is in appeal against the award of the learned court below assessing the compensation of the super structure existing on the acquired land. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 11.7.1977, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Punjab acquired 11,513 kanals of land and structures standing thereon in village Kathania, Tehsil and District Amritsar. The same was followed by notification dated 19.7.1980, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector'), vide award dated 28.6.1983, assessed the market value of the super structure at ` 34,861.50. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owner filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below enhanced the value of the structure by ` 5,200/- more than the value assessed by the PWD authorities. Learned counsel for the appellant raised a solitary argument that the learned court below while assessing the compensation for the super structure has in fact reduced the amount even from what had been awarded by the Collector. He R.F.A. No. 433 of 1995 [ 2] submitted that the Collector had assessed the value of the super structure at ` 34,861.50, whereas the learned court below awarded the appellant ` 5,200/- more than the value assessed by PWD authorities. In fact, the PWD authorities had assessed the value at ` 23,630/-. In case, ` 5,200/- are added thereon, the same would come out to ` 28,830/-, which would be less than the award of the Collector. In terms of the provisions of Section 25 of the Act, the Reference Court cannot award compensation less than the award of the Collector, accordingly, the award of the learned court below deserves to be set aside and that of the Collector be upheld. Learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute the legal position that the land owners cannot be awarded compensation less than the amount awarded by the Collector. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant. The facts, as stated by him, are not disputed. Considering the provisions of Section 25 of the Act, in terms of which the land owners cannot be awarded amount less than what is awarded by the Collector, in my opinion, the award passed by the learned court below deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, by setting aside the impugned award, it is held that the land owner is entitled to compensation @ ` 34,861/- for the super structure existing on the acquired land. They shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits available to them under the Act. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. ( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge 21.12.2010 mk