R.F.A. No. 579 of 2006 [ 1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision: 1.10.2008
1. R.F.A.No.579 of 2006
Smt. Akko Devi and others .........Appellants
versus
Union Territory, Chandigarh and another .........Respondents
2. R.F.A.No.1968 of 2005
Sher Singh and another ……..Appellants
versus
Union Territory and another ………Respondents
3. R.F.A.No.1969 of 2005
Rajinder Singh ……..Appellant
versus
Union Territory and another ………Respondents
4. R.F.A.No.1970 of 2005
Man Singh and another ……..Appellants
versus
Union Territory and another ……..Respondents
5. R.F.A.No.1971 of 2005
Raj Kumar and another …….Appellants
versus
Union Territory and another ……..Respondents
6. R.F.A.No.1972 of 2005
Nachhattar Singh ………Appellant
versus
Union Territory and another ……..Respondents
7. R.F.A.No.1973 of 2005
Joginder Singh ………Appellant
versus
Union Territory and another ………Respondents
R.F.A. No. 579 of 2006 [ 2]
8. R.F.A.No.1974 of 2005
Jot Ram ………Appellant
versus
Union Territory and another ………Respondents
9. R.F.A.No.1975 of 2005
Sanjeev Kumar and another ……..Appellants
versus
Union Territory and another ………Respondents
10. R.F.A.No.1976 of 2005
Jagga Ram and another …………Appellants
versus
Union Territory and another ………..Respondents
11. R.F.A.No.1977 of 2005
Rai Singh and another ……….Appellants
versus
Union Territory and another ………..Respondents
12. R.F.A.No.1978 of 2005
Krishna Devi ………..Appellant
versus
Union Territory and another ……….Respondents
13. R.F.A.No.1979 of 2005
Gule Khan ………Appellant
versus
Union Territory and another ……….Respondents
14. R.F.A.No.1980 of 2005
Dheera Singh ………..Appellant
versus
Union Territory and another ……….Respondetns
R.F.A. No. 579 of 2006 [ 3]
15. R.F.A.No.1981 of 2005
Mukhtiar Ali ………..Appellant
versus
Union Territory and another ………..Respondents
16. R.F.A.No.2290 of 2005
Bhag Singh …………Appellant
versus
Union Territory and another ………..Respondents
17. R.F.A.No.2291 of 2005
Raghbir Singh …………Appellant
versus
Union Territory and another …………Respondents
18. R.F.A.No.2292 of 2005
Gurdev Singh ………..Appellant
versus
Union Territory and another ………..Respondents
19. R.F.A.No.2293 of 2005
Jagtar Singh ………..Appellant
versus
Union Territory and another ………..Respondents
20. R.F.A.No.2294 of 2005
Dilbag Singh ………..Appellant
versus
Union Territory and another ………..Respondents
21. R.F.A.No.577 of 2006
Pal Singh …………Appellant
versus
Union Territory and another ………….Respondents
22. R.F.A.No.578 of 2006
Gian Singh …………Appellant
versus
Union Territory and another …………Respondents
R.F.A. No. 579 of 2006 [ 4]
23. R.F.A.No.649 of 2006
Ranjit Singh …………Appellant
versus
Union Territory and another …………Respondents
24. R.F.A.No.650 of 2006
Ujaggar Singh …………Appellant
versus
Union Territory and another ……….Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. Vikas Bahl, Mr. Amit Arora and
Ms. Tanisha Peshawaria, Advocates for
the appellants.
Mr. Gurinderjit Singh, Additional Standing Counsel,
Ms. Lisa Gill and Mr. Deepak Sharma, Standing Counsel
for Union Territory, Chandigarh
Rajesh Bindal J.
This order shall dispose of the above mentioned 24 appeals, as the
same arise out of a common acquisition. However, the facts have been taken from
R.F.A. No.579 of 2006.
Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 3.7.1997, issued
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act’),
Chandigarh Administration acquired land in Villages Nizampur, Burail and
Jhumru. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector’) determined the
market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 5,91,200/- per acre. He did not award any
compensation in respect of super structures erected on the acquired land.
Aggrieved against the award of super structures, the land owners filed objections
which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, who
keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, upheld the award of
the Collector.
Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon judgments of this
Court in R.F.A. No. 894 of 1976–Hans Raj and others v. Chandigarh
Administration, decided on 8.4.1980; R.F.A. No. 2608 of 1980–Dharam Vir and
others v. Union of India, decided on 18.8.1981; R.F.A. No. 2560 of 1987– Hazura
Singh v. Union of India, decided on 25.2.2004; R.F.A. No. 2340 of 1998 – Suraj
R.F.A. No. 579 of 2006 [ 5]
Bhan and others v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, decided on 24.9.2008; Jai Kaur
v. State of Punjab and another, 1992 LACC 501 and Union of India v. Pal Singh
and another, (1994-3) PLR 569 to submit that the claim of the land owners on
account of compensation for super structure was wrongly rejected by the learned
Court below. The Collector had even exceeded its brief by opining on the nature of
construction by holding the same to be unauthorised, whereas no material was
placed before him to record such a finding as neither he was the competent
authority therefor nor any notice was issued to the land owners for the purpose.
The submission is that the land owners are entitled to compensation on account of
acquisition of super structure at the rate claimed in the valuation report submitted
by them. On the other hand, learned counsel for Union Territory relying upon
State of Orissa v. Rajakishore Das, (1996) 4 SCC 221, submitted that the
appellants in the present case have rightly been denied compensation on account of
acquisition of super structure as they were only entitled to the scrap value keeping
in view the fact that the structures made by them were unauthorised.
The issue regarding the entitlement of compensation on account of
structure in Chandigarh and especially pertaining to Villages Nizampur, Burail and
Jhumru has already been gone into by this Court in R.F.A. No. 663 of 2004 –
Union Territory, Chandigarh v. Sajjan Singh, decided on 2.8.2006 and in Suraj
Bhan’s case (supra) pertaining to Village Burail, wherein it has been opined that
the Collector being not the competent authority to go into all these issues in terms
of the jurisdiction vested in him under the provisions of the Act and there being no
material on record to enable him to record such a finding, the land owners could
not be denied the payment of compensation on account of acquisition of super
structure.
Accordingly, for the reasons recorded in Sajjan Singh’s case (supra)
and Suraj Bhan’s case (supra), it is held that denial of compensation to the land
owners on account of acquisition of super structure is not in conformity with law.
As per the estimates and site plans produced on record by the land owners, the
super structures in the present case are in the form of rooms and cattle sheds which
are subservient to agriculture. Accordingly, the findings recorded by the learned
Court below on this issue is set aside and it is held that the land owners will be
entitled to compensation on account of acquisition of super structure.
As far as the valuation of the super structure is concerned, in the
aforesaid judgments, it has been opined that the land owners shall be entitled to
compensation on the value assessed at PWD rates with 25% increase thereon.
Therefore, in the present set of appeals also, the land owners shall be entitled to
R.F.A. No. 579 of 2006 [ 6]
compensation for acquisition of super structures at the rate determined by P.W.D.
plus 25% increase thereon. The value of the super structure as determined at PWD
rate is on record. The appellants shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits
available to them under the Act.
The appeals are allowed with costs in the above terms.
(Rajesh Bindal)
Judge
1.10.2008
mk