In so far as demand of compensation to the tune of 2,13,240/- by the claimants on account of acquisition of superstructures is concerned, they had not placed on record any material evidence except the estimates prepared by PW1 Daljit Singh and to the contrary the estimates are prepared by the respondent department on the basis of valuation report prepared by RW1 Bhupinder Singh, Junior Engineer. It is always that some rough estimate is made by applying a thumb rule and assessment 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 20,000/- on the value of the super structure as a thumb rule. Considering the fact that this court in various judgments such as RFA No. 727 of 2001— Narinder Singh vs Union Territory, Chandigarh , decided on 4.2.2009, RFA No. 3921 of 2007— Arunash Chander Kaushik and others vs Union Territory, Chandigarh , decided on 10.2.2009, RFA No. 3004 of 2006— Surjit Singh vs State of Punjab and another , decided on 2.3.2009 and R.F.A. No. 2804 of 2008- Joginder Singh vs Union Territory, Chandigarh , decided on 10.3.2010, had granted 25% increase on the cost of superstructure as was assessed by the Collector, accordingly the appellants are granted increase @ 25% on the value of superstructure as has been assessed originally i.e. ` 1,11,400/-. The appellants shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available under the Act.
