RFA No. 2999 of 1992 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh RFA No. 2999 of 1992 (O&M) Date of decision : 23.8.2010 Labh Singh ..... Appellant vs The State of Punjab and another .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. H. K. Brinda, 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 superstructures existing on the acquired land. Briefly, the facts are that the land along with structures situated within the revenue estate of village Ladhal, Hadbast No. 349, Tehsil and 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 construction of SYL Canal. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') vide his award dated 28.9.1983 assessed the market value of the superstructures at ` 47,183/-. Aggrieved against the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference, the learned court below, on the basis of material placed on record by the parties, awarded compensation of ` 10,317/- more to the claimant. It is this award of the learned Reference Court which is impugned in the present appeal. A perusal of the impugned award shows that the claimant demanded compensation of ` 1,15,000/- for the superstructures and the same was assessed at ` 70,512/- by PW1 Jai Singh, vide his report Ex. P2. On the other hand, the respondent department examined RW1 Bhupinder Singh, Junior Engineer, who assessed the value of the structure at ` 57,500/- which was later on reduced by the respondent without any basis to ` 46,600/-. When the respondent department itself assessed the compensation for the structure, no cut could be applied thereon without there being any basis. RFA No. 2999 of 1992 -2- In so far as demand of compensation to the tune of ` 1,15,000/- 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 Jai Singh and to the contrary the estimates are prepared by the respondent department on the basis of valuation report prepared by RW1 Bhupinder 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 ` 10,317/- 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. ` 57,500/-. 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