R. F. A No. 3916 of 2007 (1)
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
Date of decision : 9.1.2009
1. R. F. A No. 3916 of 2007 (O&M)
Inderjit Singh ... Appellant
vs
The State of Punjab and others .... Respondents
2. R. F. A No. 3917 of 2007 (O&M)
Darab Singh … Appellant
vs
The State of Punjab and others …. Respondents
3. R. F. A No. 3918 of 2007 (O&M)
Garja Singh and another … Appellants
vs
The State of Punjab and another …. Respondents
4. R. F. A No. 3919 of 2007 (O&M)
Mahan Singh … Appellant
vs
The State of Punjab and others …. Respondents
5. R. F. A No. 3920 of 2007 (O&M)
Jang Singh … Appellant
vs
The State of Punjab and another …. Respondents
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: Mr. Sarabjeet Khaira, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr. N. S. Boparai, Advocate, for the respondents.
Rajesh Bindal J.
This order shall dispose of Regular First Appeal Nos. 3916 to
3920 of 2007 filed by the landowners for further enhancement of
compensation on account of acquisition of land. The facts have been noticed
from R. F. A. No. 3916 of 2007.
R. F. A No. 3916 of 2007 (2)
Briefly, the facts are that vide notifications dated 27.3.1991 and
23.1.1992, issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(for short, ‘the Act’), the Government of Punjab, acquired land situated in
Villages Chanalon and Singhpura, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar, for setting
up of Industrial Focal Point, Chanalon. The Land Acquisition Collector (for
short, “the Collector”) assessed the market value of the acquired land, apart
from separate compensation for super structure, fruit/non-fruit bearing trees,
at the following rates:-
Sr. No. Kind of land Village Chanalon
1 Chahi Rs. 2,22,560/- per acre
2 Barani Rs. 1,66,920/- per acre
3 Banjar Rs. 1,11,280/- per acre
4 Gair mumkin Rs. 55,640/- per acre
Dissatisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector,
the landowners/claimants filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of
the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 3.12.1998, upheld the
award of the learned Collector. This award of the learned court below is
under challenge before this court.
Earlier some of the landowners as well as the State also filed
appeals before this court against the award of the learned court below. This
court after considering the material on record, vide order dated 6.10.2004
passed in R. F. A. No. 874 of 1997 Sarwan Singh vs The State of Punjab
and others, remanded the cases back to the Reference Court for fresh
decision. The learned court below after considering the matter, vide award
dated 4.8.2005, assessed the value of the acquired land at a flat rate of Rs.
2,22,560/- per acre.
Aggrieved against the said award dated 4.8.2005, the
landowners as well as the State filed appeals before this court. This court
vide order dated 8.12.2008 passed in R. F. A. No. 2801 of 2005 Punjab
Small Scale Industries and Export Corporation vs Bhajan Singh and others,
disposed of the appeals in the following terms:-
“i) The value of the land upto 100 meters on Chandigarh-
Ropar Highway is increased from Rs. 2,22,560/- per acre
to Rs. 2,80,000/- per acre whereas the award of the learned
court below pertaining to the land behind that is upheld.
R. F. A No. 3916 of 2007 (3)
ii) As far as the acquisition of fruit bearing trees on the
acquired land is concerned, the landowners shall be
entitled to increase @ 80% on the value assessed by
applying Dr. Nijjar’s formula as against 60% granted by
the learned court below.
iii) In so far as the acquisition of superstructure is concerned,
the award of the learned court below is upheld.”
As far as the present appeals are concerned, the same arise out
of the award passed by the learned Reference Court in the first round of
litigation which in the case of other landowners was subject matter of
appeal before this court in Sarwan Singh’s case (supra) and other connected
cases. As the claim pertaining to the same acquisition has already been dealt
with by this court after the remand cases were decided by the Reference
Court, I do not deem it appropriate to remit the cases back to the Reference
Court, rather it would be more appropriate to follow the judgment of this
court rendered in Bhajan Singh’s case (supra), whereby the order passed by
the learned court below after the remand order by this court was impugned.
Accordingly, for the reasons recorded in Bhajan Singh’s case
(supra), the present appeals are disposed of in the same terms.
9.1.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge