RFA No. 1488 of 1996 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R. F. A. No. 1488 of 1996 (O&M) Date of decision: May 15, 2009 Smt. Ajmer Kaur .. Appellant v. The State of Punjab and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the State. Rajesh Bindal J. The land owner has approached this court through the present appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned court below on account of acquisition of super structure existing on the acquired land. Briefly, the facts are that tubewell including the material and structure of the appellant was acquired along with the land situated in village Sohana, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar by the State of Punjab. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') awarded compensation of Rs. 11,233.28 on account of acquisition of tubewell only. Dissatisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, the land owner/claimant filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 20.4.1996, assessed the compensation for tubewell and other structures at Rs. 15,000/-. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the court below has not granted appropriate compensation to the land owner on account of acquisition of tubewell and other super structure existing on the land in question. He submitted that as against the estimate of Rs. 44,192/-, only a sum of Rs. 15,000/- has been granted, which is on the lower side. He further submitted that as against the evidence led by the land owner, no evidence was led by the State to controvert the same and accordingly, the same deserves to be relied upon. RFA No. 1488 of 1996 [2] On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the land owner in the present case has been awarded just and fair compensation. It was on the basis of guess work that the amount of compensation has been determined by the learned court below which cannot be faulted with, as there is no material as such which could lead to the conclusion that the assessment so made by the learned court below deserves to be set aside and the land owner is entitled to more amount of compensation. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the appellant claimed Rs. 50,000/- on account of acquisition of tubewell. The Collector assessed the compensation at Rs. 11,233.28, though in the evidence led by the appellant, estimate claiming the value of the tubewell and other structures at Rs. 44,192/- was produced. In the evidence led by the State, estimated cost of the tubewell was found to be Rs. 5,548/-. On account of variation on estimation, the learned court below, on the basis of guess work, granted Rs. 15,000/-. Considering the claim made by the appellant and the evidence led by her, assessment of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation for tubewell is certainly on lower side and the appellant is entitled to some increase thereon and, in my opinion, it would be reasonable to assess the value of the tubewell on the date of acquisition at Rs. 20,000/- as against Rs. 15,000/-, as assessed by the learned court below. The appellant shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available to her under the Act. The appeal is disposed of in the manner indicated above. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge May 15, 2009 mk