All these appeals can be consolidated and disposed of by common order as they involve common point. assessee owned agricultural lands at Rewari and Gurgaon. These lands were acquired by Government of Punjab under land Acquisition Act of 1894. Notice under s. 6 of said Act is issued on 22nd April, 1955. By order dt. 29th July, 1956 concerned Collector awarded compensation of Rs. 25,117 besides solatium and interest at 4 per cent. Dissatisfied with compensation awarded, assessee filed petition before Senior Sub-Judge, Gurgaon for enhancement of compensation. By his order dt. 17th Aug., 1959 Senior Sub-Judge determined price of land at Re 1 per sq. yd. assessee still dissatisfied with this enhancement in compensation, filed appeal before Hon ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. High Court determined market value of land acquired at Rs. 8000 per acre in addition to other compensation and interest. Still dissatisfied with judgment of High Court, assessee filed further appeal before Supreme Court, which is still pending. further claim made before Supreme Court was for sum of Rs. 1,14,000. For purpose of wealth-tax assessments, amount originally awarded b y High Court alongwith interest which amounted to Rs. 1,99,000 was returned by assessee. On ground that assessee has filed further appeal before Supreme Court claiming further sum, WTO thought that value claimed by assessee before Supreme Court should be value to be taken for wealth-tax purposes. On that view, he adopted Rs. 2,30,000 as compensation of this land in substitution of value returned by assessee. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeals before AAC and contended that merely because claim was made for higher compensation, that claimed amount did not become amount of compensation unless awarded and, therefore, that amount should not have been adopted as market value. Unless right was quantified by competent Court, that only remained claim and claim cannot be regarded as valuable right. Relying upon decision of Supreme Court in Khorshed Shapoor Chenai, Mrs. Vs. Asstt. CED (1980) 14 CTR (SC) 356: (1980) 122 ITR 21 (SC), AAC held that WTO was wrong in including in wealth of assessee amount of compensation claimed before Supreme Court as if that became right in hands of assessee. He deleted amount added by WTO, aggrieved by which Department has come up in appeal before Tribunal contending that AAC erred in deleting amount of enhanced compensation, which was correctly assessed by WTO. We are unable to appreciate view taken by Revenue in arguments addressed before us. In case before Supreme Court in case of Khorshed Shapoor Chenai, Mrs. Vs. Asstt. CED (1980) 14 CTR (SC) 356: (1980) 122 ITR 21 (SC), Supreme Court pointed out that however lands are compulsorily acquired under Land Acquisition Act, there are no two rights, one right to receive compensation and other right to receive extra compensation. claimant has only one right i.e. to receive compensation of lands at their market value on date of relevant notification and it is that right that is to be quantified by Collector under s. 11 and Civil Court under s. 26 of Land Acquisition Act. Supreme Court pointed out that Collector s under s. 11 is nothing more than offer of compensation made by Government to claimant whose property is acquired. If offer is accepted, nothing further will survive but if offer is not accepted and reference is sought under s. 18, right to receive compensation must be regarded as having been survived and kept alive. It is not correct to say that no sooner Collector made his award under s. 11 than right to compensation is destroyed or ceased to exist or is merged in award. claimant can litigate correctness of award because his right to compensation is not fully redeemed but remains alive. This, however, does not mean that evaluation of right done by Civil Court subsequently would be its valuation as at relevant valuation date for purpose of wealth-tax. It is duty of Assessing authority under WT Act to evaluate property i.e. right to receive compensation on relevant valuation date. Then Supreme Court pointed out that in case of right to receive compensation, which is property, estimated value can never be below figures quantified by Collector. estimated value can be equal to Collector s award or more but can never be equal to tall claim made by claimant in reference nor equal to claim actually awarded by Civil Court because risk or hazard of litigation would be detracting facto while arriving at reasonable value of property. assessing authority, Supreme Court directed, will have to estimate value having regard to peculiar nature of property, its marketability and surrounding circumstances including risk or hazard of litigation coming large on relevant valuation date. It is thus settled law that compensation ahs to be estimated by WTO on relevant valuation date and estimation can never be equal to claim made by claimant. In this case High Court has already decided compensation in particular way and since State of Punjab and Haryana was not in appeal against award given by High Court, it can be safely presumed that amount had become final. In litigation before Supreme Court that assessee is pursuing compensation can either be enhanced further or rejected but there is no possibility of it being reduced. In circumstances compensation as awarded by High Court must be compensation that should have been evaluated as market value on relevant valuation date and assessed for purpose of wealth tax and not amount of compensation claimed by assessee before Supreme Court. In circumstances view taken by AAC is perfectly correct and we uphold it. In result, these appeals are dismissed. *** WEALTH-TAX OFFICER v. RAJA RATTI RAM