RFA No. 1925 of 1990 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh RFA No. 1925 of 1990 (O&M) Date of decision : 8.3.2011 Partap Kaur (deceased) through LRs .... Appellant vs Union of India ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: None for the appellant. Mr. B. S. Kanwar, Advocate, for Union of India. Rajesh Bindal J. The landowner has filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for the superstructures existing on the acquired land. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Union of India vide notification dated 10.5.1979 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), acquired land along with superstructures existing thereon situated in the revenue estate of Village Gobindpura, Tehsil and District Bathinda, for defence purposes. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 4.10.1979. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, the Collector') awarded ` 21,387/- for the tubewell. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowner filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below declined the claim of the appellant. It is this award which is impugned by the landowner before this court. A perusal of the impugned award shows that the appellant could not prove on record by leading any cogent and convincing evidence showing the value of the tubewell was ` 1,00,000/- at that time and also that there was any house existed on the acquired land. However, the Collector has only granted the amount so assessed by the PWD authorities as compensation on account of acquisition of tubewell and the learned court below has not granted any increase thereon. RFA No. 1925 of 1990 2 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 exhorbitant 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 ` 21,387/- for the tubewell 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 is also granted increase @ 25% on the value of tubewell as has been assessed by the Collector. The landowner shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits available under the Act. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. 8.3.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge