R.F.A. No. 612 of 1993 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 612 of 1993 Date of Decision : 10.11.2009 Bikram Singh & another .......... Appellants Versus The State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Naresh Kaushal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. R.L. Gupta, Addl. A.G. Punjab & Mr. Harit Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (Oral) This regular first appeal is directed against the award passed by the learned District Judge, Ropar, on a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The land measuring 302.84 acres situated within the revenue limits of village Mataur, was acquired. The Land Acquisition Collector gave his award on 12.7.1984. The appellant being aggrieved by the assessment of the market value of superstructure by the land Acquisition Collector sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” ) by claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 35,000/- for tubewell, Khada and chaubacha. R.F.A. No. 612 of 1993 2 The reference was contested. In support of the claim the appellant examined Bhupinder Singh, Draftsman as PW-1, who proved his report Ex. P-1, plan Ex. P-2 and estimates Ex. P-3 to P-5, showing the market value of the tubewell along with superstructure at Rs. 23,000/-. The State of Punjab, on the other hand, examined Narinder Singh, Junior Engineer, who admitted the existence of tubewell as well as pit to the depth of 15 feet. He also proved the presence of water tank, however, he assessed the market value of the superstructure at Rs. 3422/-. The learned reference Court did not accept the evidence of Bhupinder Singh, Draftsman PW-1, for the reason that the documents exhibited by him were in fact signed by Amrik Singh, who was not examined, therefore, the learned reference Court doubted his visit to the spot and consequently by relying upon the assessment made by Narinder Singh, Junior Engineer, by ignoring the cutting in the assessment submitted by him granted compensation for the superstructure @ Rs. 5822/- (Rupees five thousand eight hundred and twenty two only ). The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended, that the learned Reference Court committed an error in law in rejecting the evidence of PW-1, though, he had categorically stated that he was working with Amrik Singh, Junior Engineer, therefore, was in a position to recognize his signatures on the documents. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that the documents were duly exhibited in his statement, which were not objected by the State, therefore, it was not right on the part of the learned R.F.A. No. 612 of 1993 3 Reference Court, to have rejected it, especially, when there was no objection about these documents by the respondent / State. It was claimed that the appellant was entitled to Rs. 23000/-, as per assessment report. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in RFA No. 1279 of 1993 titled Nirmal Kaur and another Vs. The State of Punjab decided on 23.8.2006. In the said case again the acquired land was under the same notification, and the dispute was again qua the tubewell and superstructure thereon. In the said case evidence of Amrik Singh was partly accepted and this Court was pleased to grant a sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only ) per acre inclusive of what was awarded earlier by the learned District Judge, Ropar. Mr. R.L. Gupta, Addl. A.G. Punjab, however, contends that the impugned award does not call for any interference by this Court, as the learned reference Court rightly rejected the evidence of PW1 for want of his visit on the spot and for the reason, that Amrik Singh had not appeared in the witness box. The contention of the learned Addl. A.G., Punjab, therefore, was that it is the case of no evidence on behalf of the claimant, and the appeal deserved to be dismissed. On consideration, I find force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. PW1 had categorically stated in his statement that he was working with Sh. Amrik Singh Architect and further proved the documents on record. The witness examined by the State also did not dispute the fact that the tubewell, Khada and Chabutra were in R.F.A. No. 612 of 1993 4 existence at the spot. In view of this the learned reference Court was not justified in rejecting the evidence of PW1 merely on the plea, that he may not have visited the spot as there was no dispute about the existence of the tubewell as contended by the learned counsel for the landowners. Therefore, by following the decision of this Court in RFA No. 1279 of 1993 titled Nirmal Kaur and another Vs. The State of Punjab ( supra) the compensation for superstructure of the appellant is also enhanced to Rs. 15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand only) which shall be exclusive of the compensation already granted. The appellant shall also be entitled to other statutory benefits under the Act on this enhanced compensation i.e. Rs. 15,000 – 5822 = Rs. 9178 ( Rupees nine thousand one hundred and seventy eight only). Appeal allowed. No costs. 10.11.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE