RFA No. 97 of 2001 [ 1] In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: April 20,2009 1. R.F.A. No. 97 of 2001 Gurdev Singh (deceased) through LRs and another ... Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .... Respondent 2. R.F.A. No. 114 of 2001 Darbara Singh and another ... Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .... Respondent 3. R.F.A. No. 115 of 2001 Swaran Singh ... Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .... Respondent 4. R.F.A. No. 325 of 2001 Mrs. Avtar Sachdeva and others ... Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .... Respondent 5. R.F.A. No. 326 of 2001 Gurdev Singh ... Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .... Respondent 6. R.F.A. No. 732 of 2001 Gurmail Singh and others ... Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .... Respondent 7. R.F.A. No. 733 of 2001 Vidya Sagar and others ... Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .... Respondent RFA No. 97 of 2001 [ 2] 8. R.F.A. No. 734 of 2001 Rajinder Singh and others ... Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .... Respondent 9. R.F.A. No. 833 of 2001 Smt. Randhir Kaur and others ... Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .... Respondent 10 R.F.A. No. 2004 of 2001 Narinder Singh ... Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .... Respondent 11. R.F.A. No. 2005 of 2001 Gurdeep Singh ... Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .... Respondent 12. R.F.A. No. 2006 of 2001 Naratta Singh ... Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .... Respondent 13. R.F.A. No. 2406 of 2001 Primal Kanta Chadha ... Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .... Respondent 14. R.F.A. No. 501 of 2002 Union Territory, Chandigarh ... Appellant vs Darbara Singh and another .. Respondents RFA No. 97 of 2001 [ 3] 15. R.F.A. No. 502 of 2002 Union Territory, Chandigarh ... Appellant vs Gurdip Singh .. Respondent 16. R.F.A. No. 503 of 2002 Union Territory, Chandigarh ... Appellant vs Gurdev Singh .. Respondent 17. R.F.A. No. 504 of 2002 Union Territory, Chandigarh ... Appellant vs Primal Kanta Chadha .. Respondent 18. R.F.A. No. 505 of 2002 Union Territory, Chandigarh ... Appellant vs Gurdev Singh .. Respondent 19. R.F.A. No. 506 of 2002 Union Territory, Chandigarh ... Appellant vs Swaran Singh .. Respondent 20. R.F.A. No. 507 of 2002 Union Territory, Chandigarh ... Appellant vs Vidya Sagar and others .. Respondents 21. R.F.A. No. 508 of 2002 Union Territory, Chandigarh ... Appellant vs Rajinder Singh and others .. Respondents 22. R.F.A. No. 509 of 2002 Union Territory, Chandigarh ... Appellant vs Narinder Singh .. Respondent RFA No. 97 of 2001 [ 4] 23. R.F.A. No. 1414 of 2002 Union Territory, Chandigarh ... Appellant vs Gurmail Singh .. Respondent 24. R.F.A. No. 2618 of 2003 Union Territory, Chandigarh ... Appellant vs Narata Singh .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. P. C. Dhiman, Advocate for the land owners. Ms. Lisa Gill, Advocate for Union Territory, Chandigarh in RFA No. 325 and 326 of 2001. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of a bunch of 24 appeals, as the same arise out of a common acquisition. R.F.A. Nos. 97, 114, 115, 325, 326, 732, 733, 734, 833, 2004 to 2006 and 2406 of 2001 have been filed by the land owners seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. R.F.A. Nos. 501 to 509 and 1414 of 2002 and 2618 of 2003 have been filed by Union Territory, Chandigarh seeking reduction of the amount of compensation awarded to the land owners for the acquired land. The facts have been extracted from R. F. A. No. 97 of 2001. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Union Territory vide notification dated 5.1.1996, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”), acquired land measuring 6.92 acres, situated in village Kajheri, for the purpose of construction of approach road from Junction 52-53 to Kajheri. The same was followed by notification dated 22.4.1996, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the land at Rs. 5,25,000/- per acre. The landowners feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Collector, filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 8,47,000/- per acre. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that acquisition in the RFA No. 97 of 2001 [ 5] present case was carried out for the purpose of construction of a road leading from junction of Sector 52-53 passing close to abadi of village Kajheri and leading to Mohali. The land of village Kajheri was acquired for the purpose of development of third phase of Chandigarh vide notification dated 22.5.1992 and this Court in R.F.A. No. 696 of 1998 –Joginder Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, decided on 29.11.2006, determined the fair value of the land at Rs. 10,12,000/- per acre. The land in question is forming part of Sector 51, Chandigarh. The submission is that the land owners are entitled to further increase in the value of the acquired land considering the time gap in the notifications. On the other hand, learned counsel for Union Territory, Chandigarh very fairly stated that as far as the earlier judgment of this Court pertaining to the determination of fair value of the land of village Kajheri is concerned, the same is not in dispute. She submitted that the Collector had granted separate amount of compensation for the land, which was recorded as Gair Mumkin Choe. That small portion of land measuring 0.54 acres cannot possibly be granted same amount of compensation as has been granted for the plain land. She further submitted that the award of severance @ 50% granted to the land owners also calls for interference by this Court for the reason that there is no evidence led by the land owners to the effect that in what manner they have suffered loss on account of laying down the road and to what extent. In fact, the left over portion of the land of the land owners was acquired subsequently in the year 1999 and accordingly, if there was any loss, that was for a very short duration. In response to the contention raised by learned counsel for Union Territory with regard to grant of severance @ 50%, learned counsel for the land owners submitted that as stated by PW6- Norata Singh, there was tubewell installed in his land and with the bifurcation of land, part of the land on the other side of the road could not be irrigated and the same became Banjar. He further submitted that there was barbed wire put along with the road which made it impossible for the land owners to access their land from the road and accordingly severance @ 50% granted by the learned court below does not call for any interference. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the land owners to the extent that they deserve increase in the amount of compensation on account of acquisition of land. As far as location of the land is concerned, the same is not in dispute. The land falls in the revenue estate of village Kajheri, which is sandwitched between already urbanised area of Chandigarh on one side and RFA No. 97 of 2001 [ 6] Mohali on the other side. The land of revenue estate of village Kajheri was acquired for the first time vide notification dated 22.5.1992 and subsequently by various notifications for the purpose of development of third phase of Chandigarh. Admittedly, for the acquisition carried out vide notification dated 22.5.1992, this Court in Joginder Singh's case (supra) assessed the value at Rs. 10,12,000/- per acre. The land in question was acquired vide notification dated 5.1.1996. In my opinion, for the intervening period, the land owners are entitled to further increase in the value for the reason that value of the property in Chandigarh had appreciated considerably during the intervening period. Increase @ 12% p.a. is considered reasonable, as has been granted in other cases of Chandigarh, where the value was determined pertaining to the acquisition of land for third phase of Chandigarh. The time gap between the notifications being 3 years and 7 months adding 43% , the value of the acquired land would come out to Rs. 15,21,312/- (which is rounded off to Rs. 15,21,300/-) per acre. The land owners shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available under the Act. As far as amount awarded on account of severance is concerned, the acquisition in the present case is for construction of a road, which is at the same level. Even left over land was also acquired subsequently in the year 1999. But still the land owners suffered damages on account of acquisition of land for construction of road, but in such circumstances, in my opinion, grant of severance @ 50% would certainly be on higher side and it would be reasonable to grant the same @ 25% of the value of the acquired land. As far as contention of learned counsel for Union Territory regarding the finding of the learned court below in granting same amount of compensation for the land forming part of Gair Mumkin Nadi, Choe and Khadan is concerned, I find merit in the submissions made. A perusal of the site plan of Chandigarh shows that a part of the acquired land is in fact Gair Mumkin Nadi/Choe, which is running throughout the territory of Chandigarh starting from Sector 3 and passing through Sectors 10, 16, 23, 36, 42, 53, 52, 51, 62, 63, 68, 67 and 66. The contention that no jamabandi was prepared in Chandigarh for quite some time is not relevant as the land owners have not produced on record even the latest khasra girdawaris to substantiate their claim. The site plan of Chandigarh shows that in fact the land, which was forming part of Gair Mumkin Nadi/Choe was left as such along with other area in the vicinity as green belt and even now the water flows through that. Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, the award of same amount of compensation for the land which was forming part of Gair Mumkin Nadi/Choe cannot be justified on any reason whatsoever. The issue regarding RFA No. 97 of 2001 [ 7] valuation of the land forming part of Gair Mumkin Nadi/Choe was considered by this Court in R.F.A. No. 3921 of 2007-- Arunash Chander Kaushik and others v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, decided on 10.2.2009 for the acquisition carried out vide notification dated 20.8.1998 pertaining to the acquisition of land for third phase of Chandigarh and the same was assessed at Rs. 7,21,700/- per acre. In my opinion, the compensation payable to the land owners in the present case shall be liable to be decreased @ 12% per annum. Accordingly, for the land acquired vide notification dated 5.1.1996, the value of the land forming part of Gair Mumkin Nadi/Choe is assessed at Rs. 4,98,000/- per acre. The award of the learned court below is modified to that extent. The land owners shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available under the Act. The appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated above. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge April 20 ,2009 mk