RFA No. 844 of 2000 [1]
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
Date of decision: March 26 ,2009
1. R.F.A. No. 844 of 2000 (O&M)
Smt. Harbhajan Kaur .. Appellant
v.
Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent
2. R.F.A. No. 845 of 2000 (O&M)
Kulwant Singh .. Appellant
v.
Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent
3. R.F.A. No. 846 of 2000 (O&M)
Smt. Parkash Kaur .. Appellant
v.
Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent
4. R.F.A. No. 847 of 2000 (O&M)
Sarbjit Singh and another .. Appellants
v.
Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent
5. R.F.A. No. 848 of 2000 (O&M)
Smt. Chander Prabha .. Appellant
v.
Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent
6. R.F.A. No. 1230 of 2000 (O&M)
Malkit Singh and others .. Appellants
v.
U.T., Chandigarh and others .. Respondents
7. R.F.A. No. 1231 of 2000 (O&M)
Smt. Charan Kaur .. Appellant
v.
U.T, Chandigarh .. Respondent
RFA No. 844 of 2000 [2]
8. R.F.A. No. 1232 of 2000 (O&M)
Baldev Singh .. Appellant
v.
U.T., Chandigarh and another .. Respondents
9. R.F.A. No. 1233 of 2000 (O&M)
Tirlok Singh .. Appellant
v.
U.T, Chandigarh and another .. Respondents
10. R.F.A. No. 1234 of 2000 (O&M)
Nachhatar Singh and others .. Appellants
v.
U.T., Chandigarh and others .. Respondents
11. R.F.A. No. 1235 of 2000 (O&M)
Darshan Singh .. Appellant
v.
U.T., Chandigarh .. Respondent
12. R.F.A. No. 1236 of 2000 (O&M)
Sukhdev Singh (deceased) through LRs .. Appellants
v.
U.T., Chandigarh .. Respondent
13. R.F.A. No. 1238 of 2000 (O&M)
Gurdev Singh and others .. Appellants
v.
U.T., Chandigarh .. Respondent
14. R.F.A. No. 1239 of 2000 (O&M)
Sardara Singh and others .. Appellants
v.
U.T, Chandigarh .. Respondent
15. R.F.A. No. 1240 of 2000 (O&M)
Bachan Singh .. Appellant
v.
Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent
RFA No. 844 of 2000 [3]
16. R.F.A. No. 1241 of 2000 (O&M)
Hari Singh and others .. Appellants
v.
Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent
17. R.F.A. No. 1700 of 2000 (O&M)
Jaswinder Singh and others .. Appellants
v.
The Union Territory of Chandigarh .. Respondent
18. R.F.A. No. 2061 of 2000 (O&M)
Bant Singh .. Appellant
v.
Union Territory, Chandigarh and others .. Respondents
19. R.F.A. No. 2062 of 2000 (O&M)
Gurmeet Singh .. Appellant
v.
Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent
20. R.F.A. No. 2063 of 2000 (O&M)
Charan Singh and others .. Appellants
v.
Union Territory, Chandigarh and others .. Respondents
21. R.F.A. No. 2064 of 2000 (O&M)
Gurmail Singh and others .. Appellants
v.
Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent
22. R.F.A. No. 2065 of 2000 (O&M)
Gurdial Singh (deceased) through LRs .. Appellants
v.
Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent
23. R.F.A. No. 2066 of 2000 (O&M)
Gurbaksh Singh .. Appellant
v.
Union Territory, Chandigarh and another .. Respondents
RFA No. 844 of 2000 [4]
24. R.F.A. No. 2343 of 2000 (O&M)
Sant Ram and another .. Appellants
v.
Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent
25. R.F.A. No. 2434 of 2000 (O&M)
Mehar Kaur and others .. Appellants
v.
Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent
26. R.F.A. No. 2435 of 2000 (O&M)
Achhar Singh and another .. Appellants
v.
Union Territory, Chandigarh and another .. Respondents
27. R.F.A. No. 2436 of 2000 (O&M)
Achhar Singh and another .. Appellants
v.
Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent
28. R.F.A. No. 2561 of 2000 (O&M)
Angrej Singh and others .. Appellants
v.
Union Territory, Chandigarh and another .. Respondents
29. R.F.A. No. 684 of 2001 (O&M)
Gurbaksh Singh .. Appellant
v.
Union Territory, Chandigarh and another .. Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: S/Shri H. S. Gill, Senior Advocate with
R. K. Dhiman, Dinesh Ghai, A. S. Chahal and Ms. Ekta Thakur,
Advocates for the land owners.
Shri Deepak Sharma and Ms. Lisa Gill, Advocates for
Union Territory, Chandigarh.
RFA No. 844 of 2000 [5] Rajesh Bindal J.
This order shall dispose of a bunch of 29 appeals, as the same arise
out of a common acquisition.
The land owners are in appeal seeking further enhancement of
compensation for the acquired land.
The facts have been extracted from R. F. A. No. 844 of 2000.
Briefly, the facts are that the land in question, situated in the revenue
estate of Village Palsora, was acquired vide notification dated 10.12.1991 issued
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act’) for
rehabilitation of the colony in Chandigarh, which was followed by notification
under Section 6 of the Act on 24.3.1992. The Collector vide award dated
13.5.1992, assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 2,38,500/- per
acre. Aggrieved against the same, the land owners filed objections which were
referred to the learned court below. Learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh
keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, determined the fair
value of the acquired land @ Rs. 4,35,600/- per acre.
Learned counsels for the land owners submitted that the learned
court below while assessing the value of the acquired land, had relied upon awards
(Ex. P26 and Ex. P28), pertaining to the land of Villages Burail and Kajheri, which
is located close to the acquired land. The aforesaid awards were subject matter of
appeal before this Court and against award (Ex. P28), in RFA No. 696 of 1998 –
Joginder Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, decided on 29.11.2006, this Court
had further enhanced the value of the acquired land at Rs. 10,12,000/- per acre. It
was further submitted that no appeal was filed by Union Territory, Chandigarh
against the aforesaid award. As against award (Ex. P26), this Court in RFA No.
2340 of 1998 –Surjan Singh and others v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, decided
on 24.9.2008, assessed the value of the acquired land at Rs. 9,85,000/- per acre.
The submission is that as the value of the land, the awards pertaining to which
were relied upon by the learned court below, has been further enhanced by this
Court, the amount of compensation payable to the land owners in the present set of
appeals be also enhanced accordingly. To buttress the arguments further, it was
pointed out that even the Collector had determined the same amount of
compensation for the land pertaining to villages Kajheri and Burail acquired
almost at the same time, meaning thereby even the Collector had found that the
value of the land in that area was similar. It was further submitted that the land was
strategically located, as it was sandwiched between the developed area of
Chandigarh and Mohali. On one side, there are fully developed Sectors 38 to 41,
RFA No. 844 of 2000 [6]
whereas on the other side, it abuts Phase-VI of Mohali. Even village Palsora, to
which the land belonged, was itself having all the amenities required for a
comfortable living like sewerage, water, electricity, school, bank, market etc.
On the other hand, learned counsel for Union Territory, Chandigarh
submitted that the acquired land was quite close to village Maloya. Merely because
for the land of adjoining village, certain amount of compensation has been
assessed to be paid, the same amount of compensation cannot possibly be paid to
the land owners for the land, which is forming part of revenue estate of another
village, may be neighbouring. Sector 40-41, beyond which the land in question is
located, was in the outskirts of Chandigarh city. They further submitted that there
is no evidence on record to suggest that the area towards Mohali was already
developed. The land pertaining to the award, which was sought to be relied upon,
has not been pointed out on any site plan on record.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant
referred record.
A perusal of site plan Ex. A8 on record shows the location of land of
village Palsora. As is evident from the said site plan, the land in question is
situated beyond Sector 40-41. A perusal of the site plan shows that between Sector
40-41 and the other area of Mohali, Sectors 55 to 56 of Chandigarh are situated, as
the boundaries of Chandigarh suggest that half of the sector is located in
Chandigarh and half in Mohali. Meaning thereby that the acquired land is quite
close to Sector 40-41 of Chandigarh, which was existing when the land in question
was acquired. As regards the area in Mohali is concerned, it has been noticed by
the learned court below in the form of statement of PW5-Satyabir, Halqa Patwari
of village Palsora stating therein that the acquired land touched boundary of fully
developed Phase-VI of Mohali and further that village Palsora was having all basic
amenities like sewerage, electricity, water, bank, school and market. Sectors 55
and 56 fall in line from Sector 48 onwards upto Sector 56, which is called Third
Phase of Chandigarh. The land of village Kajheri is located just adjoining to the
land of village Palsora, which is subject matter of consideration in the present case.
As far as award (Ex. P26), relied upon by the learned court below is
concerned, the same pertained to the acquisition of land of village Burail vide
notification dated 15.10.1991 for development as third Phase of Chandigarh. In
that case, the Collector had determined the market value of the land at Rs.
2,50,080/- per acre, which was enhanced to Rs. 4,35,600/- per acre by the learned
Reference Court and further enhanced to Rs. 9,85,000/- per acre by this Court in
Surjan Singh’s case (supra). Further vide award (Ex. P28) for the land pertaining to
RFA No. 844 of 2000 [7]
village Kajheri, which is adjoining village Palsora, acquired vide notification dated
22.5.1992, the Collector had assessed the value at Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre, which
was enhanced to Rs. 4,35,600/- per acre by the learned Reference Court and
further enhanced to Rs. 10,12,000/- per acre by this Court in Joginder Singh’s case
(supra). The acquisition in the present case was made vide notification dated
10.12.1991 and the Collector had assessed the value at Rs. 2,38,500/- per acre. For
village Kajheri, the value was assessed by the Collector at Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre
which was acquired vide notification dated 22.5.1992.
From a perusal of the aforesaid facts, it is clear that even the Colletor
had determined the value of the land in the vicinity in the same range. The value of
the land acquired vide notification dated 22.5.1992 pertaining to village Kajheri,
which is adjoining village Palsora, was assessed by this Court at Rs. 10,12,000/-
per acre in Joginder Singh’s case (supra). The acquisition in the present case was
made 6 months prior thereto. If a reasonable cut of 6% is applied for the time gap
in the two notifications, the value of the acquired land comes to Rs. 9,51,280/- per
acre, which is rounded off to Rs. 9,51,300/- per acre.
Accordingly , the land owners in the present set of appeals shall be
entitled to compensation for the acquired land @ Rs. 9,51,300/- per acre. They
shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits available under the Act.
The appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated above.
(Rajesh Bindal)
Judge
March 26,2009
mk