R. F. A No. 955 of 2002 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R. F. A No. 955 of 2002 (O&M) Date of decision : 3.8.2008. Sukhdev Singh ..... Appellant vs Punjab State ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Naresh Kaushal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. The landowner has approached this court through the present appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 20.7.1993, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), the State of Punjab acquired land in Villages Mauli Baidwan, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar (Now District Mohali), for setting up residential urban estate in the area of Tehsil Kharar, District Rup Nagar. Vide award No. 452 dated 3.8.1995 the Collector assessed compensation @ ` 1,75,000/- per acre. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned Court below determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 4,86,000/- per acre. It is this award which is impugned in the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned court below while assessing the market value of the acquired land had relied upon earlier award, Ex. P-4, vide which the market value of the land acquired vide notification dated 12.11.1992 had been assessed. Considering the time gap in the two acquisitions increase @ 12% per annum was granted thereon for eight months. Ex. P-4 was challenged before this court by the landowners by filing appeals. This court vide judgment dated 28.1.2010 passed in RFA No. 2348 of 1998 Kapoor Singh vs The State of Punjab and another, had determined the compensation payable to the landowners therein @ ` 7,80,000/- per acre. He submitted that in the present case the land was acquired vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 20.7.1993. It was submitted that increase for time gap in between two acquisitions be granted for the period of eight months. It was for the reason that acquired land was a small left out portion of the big chunk of land acquired earlier. R. F. A No. 955 of 2002 2 On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent could not dispute the aforesaid factual position as submitted by the counsel for the appellant. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. A perusal of the award shows that value of the land in the present case was assessed on the basis of earlier award, Ex.P-4, vide which the value of the land acquired vide notification dated 12.11.1992 was determined by the court below. The land in the present case was acquired vide notification dated 20.7.1993 i.e. after 8 months of earlier notification. It is located adjoining to the earlier acquired land. If the base is taken in terms of the value of the land as given in Ex. P-4 where the acquisition was vide notification dated 12.11.1992, a reasonable increase for time gap in between two acquisitions can very well be granted. The value of the land acquired vide notification dated 12.11.1992 was determined @ ` 7,80,000/- per acre by this corut in Kapoor Singh's case (supra). The acquisition in the present case is vide notification dated 20.7.1993. Keeping in view the time gap of 8 months between the two acquisitions, in my opinion, increase @ 8% would be reasonable. Accordingly, the value of the land in the present acquisition is determined at ` 8,42,400/- per acre. The appellants shall also be entitled to statutory benefits available under the Act. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. 3.8.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge