R.F.A. No. 2581 of 1993 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 25.8.2010 (1) R.F.A. No. 2581 of 1993 (O&M) Union of India .. Appellant v. Basant Singh and another .. Respondents (2) R.F.A. No. 3717 of 1993 (O&M) Basant Singh .. Appellant v. Union of India and another .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Brijeshwar Singh Kanwar, Advocate for Union of India. Mr. Alok Jain, Advocate for the land owner. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 2581 and 3717 of 1993, as common questions of law and facts are involved. Challenge in the aforesaid appeals is to the award of the learned court below, whereby the compensation for the structure existing on the acquired land was determined. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 11.7.1977, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Punjab acquired 11,513 kanals of land and structure standing thereon, situated in village Kathania, Tehsil and District Amritsar. The same was followed by notification dated 19.7.1980, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the value of the structure at ` 1,64,762.50. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land R.F.A. No. 2581 of 1993 [2] owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below enhanced the value of the structure by ` 74,700/- . Learned counsel for Union of India submitted that the amount of compensation, as awarded by the learned court below on account of structure existing on the acquired land is highly excessive, as the evidence produced on record by the land owner was not convincing on the basis of which the learned court below enhanced the same by ` 74,700/-. The land owners make exhorbitant claims without there being any basis for the same and in the present case, the learned court below just accepted the same and awarded the compensation. On the other hand, learned counsel for the land owner submitted that what to call for reduction in the amount of compensation already awarded by the learned court below, the land owner is entitled to more compensation on account of super structure. The learned court below has merely awarded 50% of the difference of value, as assessed by the Collector, and in terms of the evidence produced by the land owner. The land owner should have been granted the entire amount of compensation, as was claimed by him in the evidence led, once no defect as such was pointed out in the evidence. Reliance was placed upon a judgment of this Court in R.F.A. No. 3012 of 1993 –Union of India v. Inder Singh, decided on 14.7.2009. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award for the reason that it was not disputed before this court that in the award of the learned court below (Ex. P4), it has been noticed that the manner in which valuation of the super structure was done in the present case, was challenged upto Hon'ble the Supreme Court by the Union of India and the same was upheld. As against this, I would not like to rely upon the judgment of this Court. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 25.8.2010 mk