RFA No. 5053 of 2010 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh RFA No. 5053 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 31.3.2011 Suresh Kumar ..... Appellant vs State of Haryana and another .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Ajit Malik, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. ... Rajesh Bindal J. The claimant 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. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 12.9.2001, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), the State of Haryana sought to acquire land of the appellant along with the structure existing thereon situated within the revenue estate of village Sewah, Hadbast No. 32, Tehsil and District Panipat, for the purpose of shifting of dyeing units in Sector 29, Part-II, Panipat. The same was followed by notification dated 1.3.2002, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') vide award dated 25.7.2002 assessed the market value of the structure at ` 2,64,360/-. Feeling dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners preferred objections. On reference, the learned court below assessed the market value of the structure at ` 3,50,000/-. It is this award which is impugned in the present appeal by the claimant. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the State Government acquired the land of the appellant along with superstructures i.e. Poultry farm, several rooms and a submersible pump. Inspite of leading sufficient evidence in support of his claim, the landowner was only granted a sum of ` 2,64,360/- by the Collector and RFA No. 5053 of 2010 -2- ` 3,50,000/-. by the court below whereas the landowner had spent more than ` 6,19,000/- thereon. The prayer is for enhancement of compensation. On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that sufficient compensation has been assessed by the Collector and further increase of ` 85,640/- has been awarded by the court below while applying thumb rule. However, as per the evidence produced on record by the landowner no case for further enhancement was made out. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper- book. A perusal of the impugned award shows that as per the assessment made by PW-2 Harpal, vide his report Ex. PW2/C, the value of the structure was assessed at ` 6,19,000/-. On what basis, this witness had prepared his report, Ex. PW2/C, has not been explained by him. He prepared the report on the basis of self assessment. No material evidence except the estimates prepared by PW2 Harpal has been produced on record by the claimant. It is not the case of the appellant that poultry farm was in operation when the acquisition was made. It is always that some rough estimate is made by applying a thumb rule and assessment of value in such type of 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 court below has granted additional compensation of ` 85,640/- on the value of the super structure over and above ` 2,64,360/- awarded by the Collector, as a thumb rule. This court would not like to interfere in the value so assessed by the learned court below in view of the evidence on record. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 31.3.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge