R. F. A No. 4621 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh RFA No. 4621 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 17.9.2010. State of Haryana and others ..... Appellants vs Inder Singh ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. The State of Haryana has approached this court through the present appeal seeking reduction of compensation for the superstructure existing on the acquired land. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 24.3.2003, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), the State of Haryana acquired land along with superstructures existing on the acquired land situated in District Sirsa, for construction of Hisar-Ghaggar Drain. The Land Acquisition Collector vide award dated 27.7.2005 assessed the market value of the tubewell at ` 23,352/- and ` 55,500/- for dhani. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners/claimants filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 17.2.2010, determined the market value of the acquired tubewell at ` 35,028/- and ` 83,250/- for the dhani. It is this award which is challenged in the present appeal. A perusal of the award of the court below shows that while determining the market value of the superstructures existing on the acquired land, the court below had considered the evidence led by both the parties. The learned State counsel could not point out any evidence which the court below misread while determining the compensation for the acquired superstructures. The compensation was assessed as per the PWD rates provided by the State functionaries itself. Considering the total covered area and the rates of construction, the court below had assessed the value of the dhani. As far as the market value of the tubewell in question is concerned, the court below has assessed the same after making deduction for the relevant years @ 12%, p.a. which cannot be said on lower side. R. F. A No. 4621 of 2010 2 Keeping in view the prices of raw materials these days, the compensation assessed by the court below for the superstructures cannot be said on higher side. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay is also dismissed. 17.9.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge