petition(s) preferred at the instance of landowner(s) invoking Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, “1894 Act”), were partly accepted.

3. Brief facts of the case are that some land owned by the landowner(s), situated in Village Faidan (Burail) U.T. Chandigarh, was acquired vide notifications dated 15.10.1991 and 13.01.1992, issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the 1894 Act respectively, for public purpose, namely, for the development of 3^rd phase of Chandigarh. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, “the LAC”) vide its Award dated 29.09.1992, awarded the compensation with respect to the super structures.

4. Aggrieved of the same, the landowner(s) invoked separate reference petition(s) under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, seeking enhancement of compensation. Upon consideration of the material available on record, the learned Reference Court vide its decision dated 18.10.2000, awarded 5%

increase due to loss of their business.

5. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid decision of the learned Reference Court, the landowner(s) preferred the aforementioned appeals.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book.

7. In the present case, the dispute relates to the enhancement being claimed by the appellant(s) towards super-structures existing over the acquired land.

8. Perusal of record shows that the appellant(s)-landowner(s) have been awarded compensation with respect to the super-structures over the acquired land while relying upon report Ex.R-39 proved on record by the deposition of Mr. Ram Kanwar, Sectional Officer (RW-1). In his statement, Ram Kanwar (RW-1) has specifically stated that the valuation of the construction was done as per Common Schedule of Rates Rules, 1987 PWD Punjab.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant(s) refers to a decision dated 24.09.2008 passed by this Court in a bunch of appeals, lead case of which was RFA-2340-1998 titled as “Surjan Singh and others vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh”, to submit that this Court went on to increase 25% of the value of super-structures as assessed by the authorities in terms of Common Schedule of Rates Rules, 1987 PWD Punjab. The relevant portion of order dated 24.09.2008 is extracted hereunder:-

“Now the second issue comes regarding the valuation of the super structure. The land owners in the present case have been granted compensation for the acquisition of super structure of the amount calculated at P.W.D., rates, whereas the land owners got the construction valued through a private valuer. There is substantial difference between the two valuations. Certain guess work has to applied by this Court. Keeping in view the earlier judgement of this Court where increase from 25% to 50% was granted in the valuation at P.W.D. rates, in my considered opinion, even if a conservative view is taken, the land owners in the present case would be entitled to increase of 25% on the value of super structure as assessed by the Collector because it is not even disputed in the evidence led by Union Territory, Chandigarh that there had been increase in the cost of construction even as per the estimates prepared by the Departmental Valuer and further for the government construction, the cement and steel, which are major items, are supplied by the government at fixed rates.

In view of my aforesaid discussion, the value of the acquired land is determined at Rs.9,85,000/- per acre. As far as valuation of super structure is concerned, the land owners shall be entitled to increase of 25% on the value, as assessed by the Collector. The land owners shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits available under the Act.”

10. In view of the aforesaid while relying upon the decision rendered in Surjan Singh’ case (supra), the award passed by the learned Reference Court is modified to the extent that the appellant(s)-landowner(s) shall be entitled to increase of 25% over and above the assessment made by Ram Kanwar, Sectional Officer (RW-1) in its report Ex.R-3