R.F.A. No. 523 of 1990 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 523 of 1990 (O&M) Date of decision: December 03 ,2008 Nazim Singh and others .. Appellants v. The Union of India .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Amit Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellants. None for the respondent. Rajesh Bindal J. The appellants are in appeal before this Court against award dated 14.1.1986 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bhatinda, whereby the learned Court below awarded Rs. 39,340/- and Rs. 26,856/- for the tubewells constructed on the acquired land. Prayer in the appeal is for enhancement of the compensation. Briefly, the facts are that land along with structures and tubewells situated in Village Gobindpura, Tehsil and District Bhatinda were acquired vide notification dated 10.5.1979, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'). The same was followed by notification dated 26.10.1979 issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector in supplementary award regarding the tubewells and structures gave award of Rs. 38,042/- and Rs. 24,914/- for the tubewells. Aggrieved against the same, the appellants filed objections which were referred to the learned court below, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, awarded Rs. 39,340/- and Rs. 26,856/- for the tubewells. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the court below has not considered the fact that tubewells on the acquired land were wet and not dry and one has to spend more amount in sinking a tubewell at a wet place and the assessment made by the respondent is not fair. Even otherwise, the estimate at PWD rates is always on the lower side as for government construction, cement, steel etc. is supplied at a controlled rate. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. A perusal of the impugned award shows that as R.F.A. No. 523 of 1990 [2] against the estimate for the tubewells produced in the appellants in the form of report of an expert, claiming an amount of Rs. 51,025/- and Rs. 44,341/-, the departmental valuer assessed the value thereof at Rs. 38,042/- and Rs. 24,914/-. The learned court below granted 10% enhancement of the difference in value, as assessed by the department and and as claimed by the appellants. In addition to this, other statutory benefits under the Act were also granted. The acquisition was made on 10.5.1979 and the supplementary award regarding tubewells was made on 16.9.1982. Considering the fact that there being two estimates produced by the parties in their rival claim and the court having considered them has granted 10% of the difference in the amount of claims made by them on estimate basis as a thumb rule, the same cannot be said to be unjustified calling for further increase keeping in view the material placed on record. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge December 03 ,2008 mk