Gulati Stone Crusher and Others vs The State of Haryana and Others

Rajesh Bindal, J.—This order shall dispose of the aforesaid appeals, as the same arise out of common acquisition. The claimants are in appeal before this Court against the award of the learned court below seeking further enhancement of compensation for the superstructures existing on the acquired land where as the State is seeking reduction in the compensation.

The facts have been extracted from RFA. No. 1702 of 1994.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the State of Haryana vide notification dated 31.8.1987 issued u/s 4 the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, acquired land alongwith superstructure existing thereon, situated in Village Devi Nagar, District Ambala (now District Panchkula), for public purpose namely for the development and utilisation thereof as recreational and commercial area for Sector-3, Urban Estate, Panchkula. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, the Collector) awarded Rs. 58,161/- as compensation for the superstructure existing on the acquired land, Rs. 47,750/- on account of loss of business and Rs. 15,000/on account of shifting charges. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the claimant filed reference before the learned court below. The learned Additional District Judge, while considering the material on record, set aside the deduction @ 20% made by the valuer in estimates prepared as there was no justification found for the same and awarded Rs. 14,540/- more on account of market value of the structure existing on the acquired land and Rs. 10,000/- as compensation on account of shifting charges. It is this award, which is impugned in the present appeal.

Learned Counsel for the claimants submitted that the amount of compensation assessed by the learned court below on account of superstructures existing on the acquired land, on the date of acquisition, is not just and fair considering the amount spent by the claimants on the construction. The evidence produced by the claimants on that account was totally ignored. It was further submitted that on account of loss of business, the amount of compensation as has been granted by the learned court below is highly inadequate. It is a case where the claimants were earning their livelihood by carrying on business at the place which was acquired and on account of that they lost their means of income. It was further argued that the award of the learned court below is inadequate and the claimants are entitled to further enhancement on all counts.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State submitted that in the absence of any independent evidence on record, the claimants should not be granted any further increase on the amount as assessed by the learned Reference Court, rather, the same deserves to be reduced. In fact, the award of the Collector deserves to be upheld and the amount awarded by the learned court below be set aside.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book.

As far as compensation assessed by the learned court below on account of acquisition of superstructures on the acquired land is concerned, it is always that some rough estimate is made by applying a thumb rule. The assessment in such cases cannot be made with mathematical precision. The fact is that the claimants always make exorbitant claims for the superstructures whereas the State estimates the value thereof at its lowest price. Hence, there is force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the claimants that the learned Reference Court has granted only the amount, which was arbitrarily reduced by the valuer in estimates prepared and had not granted any further increase. The compensation granted by the learned court below is not in conformity with the judgments of this Court, wherein it has been opined that the land owners are entitled to increase @ 25% on the value of the super structure as a thumb rule. Reference in this regard can be made to judgments of this Court in RFA No. 663 of 2004 Union Territory, Chandigarh v. Sajjan Singh, decided on 2.8.2006, RFA No. 579 of 2006 Smt. Akko Devi and Ors. v. Union Territory, Chandigarh and Anr., decided on R.F.A. No. 1702 of 1994 -81.10.2008, RFA No. 1990 of 2002-Bhagwan Kaur and Ors. v. The Punjab State and Anr. decided on 4.12.2008, RFA No. 727 of 2001 Narinder Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh decided on 4.2.2009, RFA No. 3921 of 2007 Arunash Chander Kaushik and Ors. v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, decided on 10.2.2009, and RFA No. 3004 of 2006 Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr. decided on 2.3.2009. Accordingly, the appellant is granted increase of 25% on the value as assessed by the learned court below for superstructure only. The appellant shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available under the Act.

As far as grant of compensation on account of loss of business is concerned, in the absence of any clinching evidence on record, and the kind of business which was being carried on by the appellants, I do not find any ground is made out for enhancement on that count. Accordingly, the award of the learned court below on that count is upheld.

In so far as further enhancement on account of shifting charges is concerned, the learned court below after considering the material available with it granted sufficient increase which does not call any interference. The award of the court below is also upheld in this regard.

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.