RFA No. 2431 of 1995 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh RFA No. 2431 of 1995 (O&M) Date of decision : 4.3.2011 Didar Singh and another .... Appellants vs State of Haryana and another ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, Mr. Rishabh Mahajan, Advocate for Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate, Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Arun K. Singal, Advocate, for the landowners. Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of following appeals:- RFA No. 2431 of 1995; RFA Nos. 1472, 2091 of 1996; RFA Nos. 888, 1514, 1515, 1893 of 1997; RFA Nos. 3779, 3800, 3824, 3825 of 1999; RFA Nos. 1647, 1648, 1857 of 2000; RFA Nos. 1201 of 2002; RFA Nos. 511, 512, 1212 to 1222, 1297, 1429, 1432, 1477, 1478, 2356, 3157, 4351, 4675, 4676 of 2003; RFA No. 1941 of 2004; RFA No. 3338 of 2006; RFA No. 1551 of 2009; and Cross-objection Nos. 3/CI, 5/CI of 1998 and 58/CI of 2002, as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. RFA No. 2431 of 1995 2 The landowners have filed appeals and cross-objections before this court against the award of the learned court below passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land whereas by filing appeals, the State of Haryana is seeking reduction thereof. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the State of Haryana vide notification dated 10.5.1989 issued under Section 4 of the Act, sought to acquire land situated in revenue estate of Villages Kabri, Faridpur, Sarai Bachhra, Patti Magdum Jagdan and Patti Taraf Insar, Tehsil and District Panipat, for development and utilisation thereof as residential, commercial, industrial and institutional Sectors 6, 7 and 8 Panipat. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, the Collector') assessed the market value of acquired chahi land of all the villages @ ` 2,00,000/- per acre, ` 1,00,000/- per acre for gair mumkin kind of land of villages Kabri, Faridpur and Sarai Bachhra and ` 1,50,000/- per acre for gair mumkin kind of land of villages Patti Magdam Jagdan and Patti Taraf Ansar. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 9.5.1990. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below determined the market value of the acquired land ` 81/- per square yard. It is this award which is impugned by both the parties before this court. Learned counsel for the landowners submitted that the issue raised in the present set of appeals as well as in the cross-objections is squarely covered by the judgment of this court in RFA No. 2213 of 1995 – Kasturi Lal and others vs State of Haryana and another, decided on 27.5.2009, whereby compensation payable to the landowners for the acquired land was further enhanced to ` 139/- per square yard. Learned counsel for the State did not dispute the aforesaid factual position. Accordingly, for the reasons recorded in Kasturi Lal's case (supra), the present appeals and the cross-objections are disposed of in the same terms. RFA No. 3157 of 2003 In so far as additional argument of learned counsel for the landowner in RFA No. 3157 of 2003 Harbans Lal vs State of Haryana and RFA No. 2431 of 1995 3 another that the Collector has only granted the amount so assessed by the PWD authorities as compensation on account of acquisition of superstructure and the learned court below has not granted any increase thereon, 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. In the present appeal, the Collector has granted compensation of ` 2,28,643/- as assessed by the PWD authorities. 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 appellant in RFA No. 3157 of 2003 is also granted increase @ 25% on the value of superstructure as has been assessed by the Collector. 4.3.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge