RFA No. 1579 of 1993 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh RFA No. 1579 of 1993 (O&M) Date of decision : 31.3.2011 M/s Prem Kumar and Brothers ..... Appellant vs State of Punjab and another .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Vishal Garg, Advocate for the landowner. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of appeals bearing RFA Nos. 1579 and 1946 of 1993, as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. The landowner is in appeal against the award of the learned court below seeking further enhancement of compensation for the super- structures existing on the acquired land whereas by filing appeal, the State is seeking reduction thereof. The present appeals pertain to the valuation of superstructures existing on the land acquired for development as Grain Market (Anaz Mandi) vide notification dated 1.2.1985 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') by the State of Punjab, situated within the revenue estate of village Neelpur, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 16.5.1985. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short 'the Collector') vide supplementary award dated 9.5.1987 awarded ` 73,000/- for the house building, atta chakki, material etc. The landowner being dissatisfied with the award of the Collector filed objections which were referred to the learned Court below. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned Court below assessed the compensation for the superstructure at ` 1,35,400/-. Still dissatisfied, both the parties are in appeals before this court. RFA No. 1579 of 1993 -2- Learned counsel for the landowner submitted that the State Government acquired the land of the claimant along with superstructures i.e. house building, atta chakki, material etc. Inspite of leading sufficient evidence in support of his claim, the claimant was only granted a sum of ` 73,000/- by the Collector and ` 1,35,400/- by the court below whereas the loss suffered was more than ` 2,00,000/-. The prayer is for enhancement of compensation. On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that sufficient compensation had been assessed by the Collector and further increase of ` 62,400/- has been awarded by the court below while applying thumb rule without any basis. However, as per the evidence produced on record by the claimant no case for further enhancement was made out. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper- book. Considering the fact that admittedly there existed some houses, atta chakki, etc. at the spot when the land in question was acquired. The learned court below considering the evidence produced on record had enhanced the compensation from ` 73,000/- to ` 1,35,400/- as against the claim made by the landowner to the extent of ` 3,00,000/-. It is always that some estimation is made in such cases as court cannot calculate the compensation with mathematical exactitude. The enhancement already granted by the learned court below being sufficient, I do not find any reason to interfere either way. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. 31.3.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge