R.F.A. No. 2016 of 2001 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 2016 of 2001 (O&M) Date of decision: 5.10.2010 Sadhu Ram and others .. Appellants v. Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. P. C. Dhiman, Ms. Ekta Thakur and Mr. R. K. Dhiman, Hardip Singh and Mr. C. B. Goel, Advocates for the land owners. Mr. Deepak Sharma, Mr. Vishal Sodhi, Ms. Lisa Gill, and Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocates for Union Territory, Chanigarh. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 2016, 2721, 2722, 2821 to 2823, 3113, 4461, 4483, 5168 of 2001; R.F.A. No.2025, 3242 of 2002 R.F.A. Nos. 276, 1350, 1351, 1422, 1464 to 1467, 1497, 1538, 3943 to 3951, 3992, 4107, 4108 of 2003; R.F.A. No. 1576 of 2004; R.F.A. No. 3067 and 4099 of 2007; R.F.A. No. 544 of 2008; R.F.A. Nos. 344, 680, 2653, 2654, 5190, 5191, 5194 of 2009 and R.F.A. No. 266 of 2010 as common questions of law and facts are involved. In the appeals filed by the land owners, they are seeking further enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned court below for the acquired land, whereas in the appeals filed by Union Territory, Chandigarh, the prayer is for reduction thereof. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 28.6.1990, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), the land situated in village Mani Majra, Pocket No. 9 was acquired for R.F.A. No. 2016 of 2001 [2] the purpose of residential-cum-commercial Scheme No. 3. The same was followed by notification dated 24.6.1991, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector'), vide award dated 21.6.1993, assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 2,01,440/- per acre for all kinds of land, except Gair Mumkin Nadi/Nallah for which the market value was assessed @ ` 75,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 4,74,320/- per acre. One of the claimants, namely, Gurcharan Singh was also held entitled to compensation for the fruit trees to the tune of ` 1,77,337/- and ` 1,50,000/- for super structure. Vide another notification dated 9.8.1990, issued under Section 4 of the Act, the land, situated in village Mani Majra, was acquired for development as residential-cum-commercial Complex Scheme No. 3 (Pocket No. 11). The same was followed by notification dated 8.8.1991, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Collector, vide award dated 26.2.1993, assessed the market value @ ` 2,75,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 4,98,520/- per acre. The aforesaid awards of the learned court below have been challenged by both the parties. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the acquired land is located just adjoining to the populated area of Mani Majra. Modern Housing Complex is located just 1-1/2 kilometers therefrom and Chandigarh-Kalka Highway is just 2-3 kilometers. The entire area in the vicinity had already been developed or was in the phase of development at a very fast pace. Prior to the acquisition in the present case, the land was acquired by Union Territory, Chandigarh vide notification dated 10.12.1986 for development as Rehabilitation Colony. Land forming part thereof is located just adjoining to the land in question. This Court in LPA No. 241 of 2004 –Amarjit Singh and others v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, decided on 17.9.2008 assessed the value therefor @ ` 116/- per square yard. The submission is that notification in the present case having been issued on 9.8.1990, the land owners should be awarded increase @ 12% per annum thereon for the time gap in two acquisitions. On the other hand, learned counsel for Union Territory, while not disputing the acquisition of land, which was dealt with in Amarjit Singh's case (supra) submitted that formula for award of appreciation @ 12% per annum should R.F.A. No. 2016 of 2001 [3] not be applied unless there is evidence on record to show that there was appreciation of prices in the area. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. A perusal of the award of the Collector shows land acquired vide notification dated 28.6.1990 consists of Rect. Nos. 37, 38, 39, 50, 51, 52, 58 and 59, whereas the land acquired vide notification dated 9.8.1990 consists of Rect. Nos. 39, 49, 50, 51, 59, 60, 61 and 70. The acquisition of land, which was subject- matter of appeal in Amarjit Singh's case (supra), acquired vide notification dated 10.12.1986, consists of Rect. Nos. 69, 70, 61, 81, 82 and 92. Aforesaid three pockets of land are adjoining to each other. This Court in Amarjit Singh's case (supra) had assessed the value of land in Amarjit Singh's case (supra) @ ` 116/- per square yard. Learned counsel for the land owners are claiming that they be granted increase @ 12% per annum thereon for the time gap in the two notifications, which is 3 years and 10 months. This court finds the prayer made by the land owners to be justifiable. The awards announced by the Collector pertaining to the aforesaid two acquisitions also show appreciation of prices in the area, which is even at a rate more than 12% per annum. In Amarjit Singh's case (supra), the award of the Collector therein was ` 85,000/- per acre, whereas in the present case, it was ` 2,75,000/- per acre. Accordingly, after awarding increase @ 12% per annum on ` 116/- per square yard, the value of the acquired land would come out to ` 167/- per square yard. The land owners shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits available to them under the Act. To ensure that the landowners are not fleeced by the middleman in the process of disbursement of enhanced compensation, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6515 of 2009 –Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation v. Pran Sukh and others, decided on 17.8.2010, issued certain directions. I deem it appropriate to issue same directions in the present set of appeals as well. The same are as under: “With a view to ensure that the land owners are not fleeced by the middleman, we deem it appropriate to issue following further directions: (i) The Land Acquisition Collector shall depute officers subordinate to him not below the rank of Naib Tehsildar, who shall get in touch with all the land owners and/or their legal representatives and inform them about their entitlement and right to receive enhanced compensation. R.F.A. No. 2016 of 2001 [4] (ii) The concerned officers shall also instruct the land owners and/or their legal representatives to open savings bank account in case they already do not have such account. (iii) The bank account numbers of the land owners should be given to the Land Acquisition Collector within three months. (iv) The Land Acquisition Collector shall deposit the cheques of compensation in the bank accounts of the land owners.” The appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated above. ( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge 5.1.2010 mk