JUDGMENT Mr. K. Kannan, J.: (Oral) - The appeal is for enhancement of compensation for the value of superstructure and the loss of business that were occasioned to the landowner. At the time when the property was acquired, the superstructure was a poultry farm which the landowner was running at the acquired property. The farm was situate in an extent of about 400 square yards in the village Tejli, District Yamuna Nagar. 2. The landowner contended that he had constructed the poultry shed only in the year 1988-89 and the property fell to be acquired and taken possession of in the year 1991. The landowner gave evidence as regards the valuation through a report of the building expert. The report was marked as P2 and the evidence of the expert was PW1. The report sets out the details of the construction, namely, of one office, one store, poultry shed, stairs, boundary wall, steel gate in the main entrance and brick paving in open yard. He had assessed the valuation at Rs.2,14,000/-. While giving evidence as regards this, no more than a mere suggestion was put to the witness that he had given an exaggerated valuation. Nothing was elicited in the cross-examination that any of the valuations made did not conform to the standard PWD rates. As sketchy was the cross-examination of the witness of PW1, the State evidence itself was far from satisfactory. He had valued the superstructure at the figure close to Rs.98,000/-, but worked out a depreciation and assessed the valuation at Rs.38,872/-. In the manner of assessment, he had observed that on local enquiry, he found the age of the building to be about 8 years and taking the total life span of the building as 15 years, he had worked out a depreciation as high as 53% and upon the amount so arrived, he made further deduction of 15%. I find the manner of assessment to be wholly unsatisfactory. 3. The landowner had himself given evidence to the effect that he had to spent Rs.1,15,000/- for construction. Evidently, his own witness PW1 was making the valuation which was more than what even the owner had spent. Providing for an appropriate depreciation on a consideration that the landowner had put up the construction only one year earlier, I will take the value of the construction at Rs.1 lakh. Evidently, his own witness PW1 was making the valuation which was more than what even the owner had spent. Providing for an appropriate depreciation on a consideration that the landowner had put up the construction only one year earlier, I will take the value of the construction at Rs.1 lakh. The Reference Court has provided the loss of the poultry business at Rs.9,000/-. 4. The learned counsel would contend that he was earning about Rs.10,000/- per month as the account books showed and the evidence was, he had completely closed down the business. Consequently, he should be provided with loss of income at least for 2 years. In the manner of assessment of compensation, the relevant factor as spelt out under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act includes a right to claim loss occasioned by having to be compelled to change the place of business and the bona fide damage resulting diminution of profits. Between the time of publication of declaration under Section 6 and the time of the Collector taking possession, an assumed loss for life for closure of business is out of the legislative scheme under Section 23 of the Act. There is no worthwhile evidence at all as regards the expenditure that he would have had to incur for establishing the business in yet another place or the cost that he might have incurred to establish the same business elsewhere. Considering the fact that the property was established in a village and the acquisition had taken place just 2 years after the commencement, I would provide for a compensation of Rs.25,000/- as appropriate for the additional cost which he might have had to incur for setting up a new business in another place by erecting of the shed. I will quantify a further sum of Rs.25,000/- for the loss that might be occasioned for the time that could be necessary for establishing a new business in a new place. On the whole, the total compensation for the superstructure will be Rs.1 lakh and for the loss of business and for damages, it shall be Rs.50,000/-. The amount in excess shall attract the benefit of Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act for the value of the building and as regards the loss of profits and damages, it shall attract the benefit under Sections 23(2) and 28 only. 5. The amount in excess shall attract the benefit of Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act for the value of the building and as regards the loss of profits and damages, it shall attract the benefit under Sections 23(2) and 28 only. 5. The award stands modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent. ----------------