IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.306 of 2003 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.8.2009 Smt. [ENTITY] & others. Appellants Vs. [ENTITY] & others. Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE [ENTITY] HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate for the appellants. Ms. [ENTITY], Standing Counsel for Union of India. ORDER:
1. There is delay of 188 days in filing the appeal. There is also delay of 860 days in refiling the appeal. Delay in refiling has already been condoned.
2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we condone delay of 188 days in filing the appeal. Heard on merits.
3. This appeal has been preferred against judgment of the learned Single Judge, determining compensation for the acquired land @ Rs.19.10 per square yard and also directing that the appellants will be entitled to statutory benefits under the provisions of the [ACT] (for short, "the Act").
4. The land of the appellants was part of the land which was acquired for the purpose of Central Reserve Police Force in pursuance of notification dated 28.5.1985 under [SECTION] of the Act. The Collector vide award dated 27.1.1986, awarded compensation at the following rate:-
"Rs.32,500/- per acre for Barani land.
Rs. 7,500/- per acre for [ENTITY] land."
5. The reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.17/- per square yard at uniform rate. On appeal, this Court further enhanced the compensation to Rs.19.10 per square yard. The evidence led by the claimants was tabulated as under:-
"Sr Exhibit Date of Village Area Sale Price No. sale B-B price P.S.Y.
1. P-5 18.7.82 Bhogpur 0-18 18,000/- 20/-
2. PW11/A 21.3.84 Bhogpur 1-00 30000/- 30/-
3. PW11/B 04.7.83 Bhogpur 1-00 23000/- 23/-
4. PW11/C 04.7.83 Bhogpur 1-10 23000/- 23/-
5. PW11/D 24.8.84 Bhogpur 0-10 19000/- 38/-
6. PW11/E 4.7.83 Bhogpur 1-00 23000/- 23/-
7. PW11/F 4.7.83 Bhogpur 1-00 23000/- 23/-
8. PW11/G 4.7.83 Bhogpur 1-00 23000/- 23/-
9. PW11/H 9.11.83 [ENTITY] 0-03 4500/- 30/-
Nagar
10. PW11/J [ENTITY] 1-05 30000/- 24/-"
Nagar
6. Learned Single Judge held that out of 10 sale instances relied upon by the claimants, 7 were inadmissible, as vendors and vendee were not examined and only 3 instances were admissible, of which average came to Rs.22/- per square yard. Having regard to smallness of the area involved as compared to the land acquired, 30% cut on the average was applied and compensation worked to Rs.19.10 per square yard. Reference was made to judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT], for concluding that deduction of 30% to 53% or even above is required to be made on account of smallness of the area involved.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the conflict in the earlier judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on interpretation of [SECTION] of the Act has been resolved in [PRECEDENT] and it has been now held that even in absence of examination of the vendors or vendee the sale deed could be taken into account, if the same was relevant and genuine and in view of this development, the appellants were entitled to enhancement on the basis of sale-deeds which were held to be inadmissible and were not taken into account.
9. Learned counsel for the Union of India opposes this prayer and points out that even if all the sale-deeds are taken into account, the average will at best work out to less than Rs.26/- per square yard and by applying cut of 1/3rd, the compensation will not work out to more than the amount assessed by the learned Single Judge i.e. 19.10 per square yard.
10. We find merit in the submission made by learned counsel for the Union of India.
11. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with determination of compensation by the learned Single Judge.
12. The appeal is dismissed.
([ENTITY]) JUDGE August 12, 2009 ( [ENTITY] [ENTITY] JUDGE