R.F.A. No. 137 of 1991 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 11.8.2010 (1) R.F.A. No. 137 of 1991 (O&M) The State of Punjab and another .. Appellants v. Karam Singh and others .. Respondents. (2) R.F.A. No. 138 of 1991 (O&M) The State of Punjab and another .. Appellants v. Karam Singh and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. None for the respondents. .. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of above mentioned two appeals, as the same arise out of a common award. The State is in appeal against the award of the learned court below seeking reduction of the amount of compensation awarded to the land owners. The facts have been noticed from R.F.A. No. 137 of 1991. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 16.4.1985, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Punjab acquired land measuring 2.68 acres, situated in village Ahmedpur, Tehsil and District Ropar. The same was followed by notification dated 2.5.1989, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') awarded compensation @ ` 48,000/- per acre for Chahi land; ` 30,000/- per acre for Barani land and ` 20,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land. ` 20,644/- were awarded on account of super structure standing on the acquired land. However, the Additional District Judge, on reference under Section 18 of the Act, determined the market value of the acquired land at ` 2,05,000/- per acre for Chahi land; ` 1,16,000/- per acre for Barani land and ` 30,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land. He also awarded compensation of ` 48,482/- on account of R.F.A. No. 137 of 1991 [ 2] super structure existing on the acquired land. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the learned court below has not considered the evidence led by it on record for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land and has merely relied upon its earlier award, though pertaining to the same acquisition. Once independent evidence was led in the present case, the court should have considered the same and arrived at its independent conclusion. No one has appeared on behalf of the land owners. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. It is evident from a perusal of the impugned award that all what had been relied upon by the learned court below was its earlier award (Ex. P4), which was pertaining to the acquisition of land by the same notification and for the same purpose. The fact as to whether award (Ex. P4) was accepted by the State or any appeal was filed against the same has not been pointed out. While considering the evidence produced on record by the parties, the learned court below in award (Ex. P4) had assessed the fair value of the acquired land, as has been assessed in the present case. Once the reliance by the learned court below is on the earlier award pertaining to the same acquisition and the same having been accepted by the State, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award. As far as compensation assessed by the learned court below on account of acquisition of superstructure 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 land owners always make exorbitant claims for the superstructure, whereas the State estimates the value thereof at its lowest price. In the present case, the learned court below has granted compensation at ` 48,482/- instead of ` 20,644/- as awarded by the Collector. Even if there is some error in assessment of compensation, I do not find any reason to interfere at this stage after 25 years of acquisition. In view of the above, increase on the value as assessed by the learned court below for superstructure is just and fair and the same does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 11.8.2010 mk