RFA No. 5145 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh RFA No. 5145 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 26.4.2011 Lal Singh ....Appellant vs The State of Haryana and another ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. The claimant 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 vide notification dated 3.7.1995 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”), the State of Haryana, sought to acquire land along with superstructures, situated within Hadbast No. 118, Village Ajronda, Tehsil and District Faridabad, for commercial, institutional, recreational and residential purposes in conformity with development plan for Sector 20-B, Faridabad. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') determined the market value at ` 45,318/- for boundary wall. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below rejected the claim. It is this award which is impugned by the claimant before this court. A perusal of the impugned award shows that the report Ex. PW3/A prepared by appellant's own witness PW3 Rakesh Vasudeva reveals that the construction was carried out in the year 1999 whereas the acquisition in question was carried out in the year 1995. As per witness produced by the respondent State, no construction was in existence in the year 2001. The possibility that construction might have been raised after RFA No. 5145 of 2010 2 2001 cannot be ruled out. No documentary evidence in support of the claim that the construction was raised more than 20 years back has been placed on record by the appellant. The appellant could not prove by leading evidence the existence of rooms and hand pump on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act and in the absence thereof, the learned court below has rightly dismissed the claim of the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 26.4.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge