RFA No. 375 of 2002 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh RFA No. 375 of 2002 (O&M) Date of decision : 15.10.2010 Baljit Kaur ..... Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. P. C. Dhiman, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondent. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of appeals bearing RFA Nos. 375, 376 and 946 of 2002, as the same arise out of common acquisition. The landowners are in appeals against the award of the learned court below seeking enhancement of compensation for the trees/structure existing on the acquired land. Briefly, the facts are that the land along with trees and structures existing thereon within the revenue estate of village Manimajra and Daria, Union Territory, Chandigarh, was acquired vide notification dated 10.1.1992 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for afforestation by the Forest Department of Union Territory, Chandigarh. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of the structure at ` 41,009.50 and ` 84,510/- for the trees. Aggrieved against the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below dismissed the same vide award dated 5.10.2001. It is this award of the learned Reference Court which is impugned in the present set of appeals. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned court below had wrongly rejected the claim of the landowners on account of superstructures existing on the acquired land, on the date of acquisition. The evidence led by them was not considered at all. The prayer was for fair assessment of compensation considering the amount spent by the landowners on the construction. Regarding fruit bearing trees it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that though the court below had referred to Dr. Nijjar's formula but had not applied the same for the valuation of the fruit bearing trees existing on the acquired land. The price index in the year 1985 was 124, which had arisen to RFA No. 375 of 2002 -2- 224.7 in the year 1992 but the court below instead of granting any increase in terms of the price index had wrongly rejected their claim. It was submitted that as per the price index the appellants are entitled to increase @ 80%. No one has appeared for the Union Territory, Chandigarh, at the time of hearing. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the paper book. As far as assessment of compensation on account of acquisition of superstructures by the Collector, which was upheld by the learned court below, is concerned, it is always that some rough estimate is made by applying a thumb rule and assessment in such 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. 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 appellants are granted increase @ 25% on the value of superstructure as has been assessed by the Collector. They shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits available under the Act. It is not in dispute that though the court below has referred to Dr. Nijjar's formula, which is judicially accepted in number of judgments, but the same was not applied. It was admitted by the witness of the respondent that valuation of fruit bearing trees has been made as per Dr. Nijjar's formula of 1985, without giving any increase in terms of price index. The price index in the year 1985 was 124, which had arisen to 224.7 in the year 1992 when the land was acquired. The difference in the price index is 100.7. Accordingly, the appellants are granted increase @ 80% on the value of fruit bearing trees as assessed by the Collector. The appellant shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits available under the Act. The impugned award of the learned court below is modified to the extent mentioned above. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly. 15.10.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge