RFA No. 2974 of 1992 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision : 25.8.2010 1. RFA No. 2974 of 1992 (O&M) State of Haryana ..... Appellant vs Smt. Prem Lata .... Respondent 2. RFA No. 2632 of 1993 (O&M) Smt. Prem Lata ..... Appellant vs State of Haryana .... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Devinder Singh Sangwan, Advocate, for the landowner. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of the aforesaid appeals as the same arise out of common acquisition. The landowner has filed appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land as well as the house existing thereon whereas by filing appeal the State is seeking reduction thereof. Briefly, the facts are that the land in question, situated in village Ferozepur Kalan, District Ambala was acquired vide notification dated 30.3.1982 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for development and utilisation of land as commercial area. It was followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act on 26.10.1982. The Land Acquisition Collector gave award of ` 20/- per square yard for the acquired land and ` 20,800/- for the house. Aggrieved against the same, the land owner filed objections which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, awarded ` 70/- per square yard for the acquired land and ` 21,410/- for the house. It is this award which is impugned by both the parties. As regards determination of fair value of the acquired land is concerned, it is not disputed by both the parties that the learned court below had determined the market value of the land on the basis of its earlier award, Ex. P9, RFA No. 2974 of 1992 -2- whereby the market value for the acquired land vide same notification in the same area had been determined @ ` 70/- per square yard. The same is in conformity with the judgment of this Court in RFA No. 2859 of 1992 – Faquiria vs The State of Haryana, decided on 19.1.1996 and followed subsequently in RFA No. 1057 of 1993 State of Haryana vs Piara Singh decided on 9.3.2009. Accordingly, the award of the court below regarding determination of market value of the land is upheld. In so far as the claim of the landowners regarding enhancement of value of superstructure is concerned, I find force in the same. The claimant demanded compensation of ` 62,500/- on account of acquisition of superstructure. They had not placed on record any material evidence except the estimates prepared vide report, Ex. P-2. On the other hand, the estimates of ` 20,800/- was prepared by the respondent department on the basis of valuation report prepared by RW1 K. K. Goyal, SDO, as per Haryana PWD Schedule rates 1974. 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 assessed ` 21,410/- as 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 landowner is granted increase @ 25% on the value of superstructure of ` 20,800/-. She 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. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the State is dismissed and that of the landowner is disposed of in the above terms. 25.8.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge