R. F. A No. 2521 of 2002 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision : 8.3.2010 1. R. F. A No. 2521 of 2002 (O&M) Pawan Kumar and others ..... Appellants vs The Collector Land Acquisition and Colonization Department, Punjab and another ..... Respondents 2. R. F. A No. 2522 of 2002 (O&M) Bakhtawar Singh ..... Appellant vs The Collector Land Acquisition and Colonization Department, Punjab and another ..... Respondents 3. R. F. A No. 2523 of 2002 (O&M) Sukhdev Singh and others ..... Appellants vs The Collector Land Acquisition and Colonization Department, Punjab and another ..... Respondents 4. R. F. A No. 2530 of 2002 (O&M) Chanan Singh and another ..... Appellants vs The Collector Land Acquisition and Colonization Department, Punjab and another ..... Respondents 5. R. F. A No. 1741 of 2005 (O&M) Pawan Kumar and others ..... Appellants vs The Collector Land Acquisition and Colonization Department, Punjab and another ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Mani Ram Verma, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. B. B. S. Teji, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of the aforesaid appeals, as the same arise out of common acquisition. The claimants are in appeal before this court against the award of the learned court below seeking further enhancement of compensation for the superstructures existing on the acquired land. R. F. A No. 2521 of 2002 -2- The facts have been extracted from RFA. No. 2521 of 2002. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the land situated in the revenue estate of village Talwandi Bhai, Tehsil and District Ferozepur was acquired vide notification dated 10.2.1984 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for setting up of New Grain Market, which was followed by notification issued under Section 6 of the Act on 4.6.1986. The Collector vide supplementary award dated 24.8.1993, assessed the market value of the superstructures and trees etc. Aggrieved against the same, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned court below. The learned court below dismissed the references. It is this award, which is impugned in the present set of appeals. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the amount of compensation assessed by the Collector on account of superstructures existing on the acquired land, on the date of acquisition, is not just and fair considering the amount spent by the claimants on the construction. The evidence produced by the claimants on that account was totally ignored by the learned court below. It was further argued that the compensation granted to the landowners is inadequate and they are entitled to further enhancement on all counts. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that in the absence of any independent evidence on record, the claimants should not be granted any further increase on the amount as assessed by the learned Collector and the learned court below has granted sufficient compensation to them which does not call for any interference by this court. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book. As far as compensation assessed by the learned court below on account of acquisition of superstructures on the acquired land is concerned, it is always that some rough estimate is made by applying a thumb rule. The assessment in such cases cannot be made with mathematical precision. The fact is that the claimants always make exorbitant claims for the superstructures whereas the State estimates the value thereof at its lowest price. Hence, there is force in the submission of the learned counsel for the claimants that they have been granted only the amount as assessed by the department and had not been granted any further increase by the court below. The court below has wrongly rejected their claim. The compensation granted to them is not in conformity with the judgments of this Court, wherein it has been opined that the land owners are entitled to increase @ 25% on the value of the super structure applying as a thumb rule. Reference in this regard was made to judgments of this court in RFA No. 663 of R. F. A No. 2521 of 2002 -3- 2004- Union Territory, Chandigarh vs Sajjan Singh, decided on 2.8.2006, RFA No. 579 of 2006 Smt. Akko Devi and others vs Union Territory, Chandigarh and another, decided on 1.10.2008, RFA No. 1990 of 2002- Bhagwan Kaur and others vs The Punjab State and another decided on 4.12.2008, 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, and RFA No. 3004 of 2006 Surjit Singh vs State of Punjab and another decided on 2.3.2009. In the aforesaid judgments, this court had granted 25% increase in the value of the superstructures as assessed by the Collector. Accordingly, following the same principle the appellants are granted increase of 25% on the value as assessed by the Collector for superstructures only. The appellant shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available under the Act. No other argument was raised by either of the parties. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms. 8.3.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge