JUDGMENT : 

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

By way of present appeal, challenge has been made to reference Court award dated 02.08.2001 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur.

2. Briefly stating, the land owned by the appellant, situated in Village Shahpur Kandi Township, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur, came to be acquired vide notifications dated 23.06.1995 and 24.11.1995 issued under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, respectively (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Award under Section 11 of the Act was passed on 12.03.1998. The purpose of acquisition was for construction of Hydel Channel of Shahpurkandi Dam Project.

3. The present reference petition pertains to enhancement qua the structures existing over the land in question, at the time of acquisition. Vide award dated 02.08.2001, the Reference Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, rejected the claim made by the appellant.

4. Impugning the aforementioned award, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Reference Court committed illegality while ignoring the evidence adduced on record in the shape of deposition of Pawan Kumar, Draftsman (AW-1) as well as Ex.A1 i.e. a report prepared by him after applying the CSR Rates for year 1995-96, pertaining to the construction existing over the spot.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer made herein while submitting that the evidence adduced by the parties was considered and dealt with by the Reference Court, which does not warrant any inference.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the paper-book. In the present case, the appellant has proved on record the report Ex.A-1 prepared by an Expert witness AW-1/Pawan Kumar, after applying the CSR Rates in the year 1995- 96, giving value of the acquired structure, existing over the acquired land which has been seriously, disputed by respondents. Thus, without going into the evidentiary value of the said report, it would be more practical to place reliance upon a decision dated 07.10.2016 made by this Court in Darshana Devi versus State of Haryana and another bearing RFA No.1718 of 2002 and award 25% increase on the value of super structure as assessed by the Collector vide award dated 12.03.1998. The relevant portion of the aforementioned judgment is reproduced hereunder:-

“26. Ordinarily, the landowners claim an exaggerated amount as regards construction that exists on the acquired land. Likewise, the assessment of compensation for superstructure by the State is generally conservative, and is not reflective of its true value or worth. For, the exact value of the structure can never be determined with mathematical precision, therefore, this court in various decisions has been awarding 25% increase on the value of the superstructure assessed by the Collector as a thumb rule. As a result, appellant Darshana Devi shall be entitled to 25% increase upon the compensation i.e. 42,977/-, awarded to her by the Collector in this regard.”

7. In view of the discussion made hereinabove and relying upon decision made in the case of Darshana Devi (supra), the appellant is held entitled for enhancement of 25% over and above the amount awarded in her favour vide award dated 12.03.1998 against the assessment of the structures.

8. Appeal stands partly allowed in the aforesaid terms.

9. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.