R. F. A No. 2863 of 2008 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 2863 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 27.4.2011 Pritam Singh .....Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. P. C. Dhiman and Mr. Hardip Singh, Advocates, for the landowners. Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate, for Union Territory, Chandigarh. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of RFA Nos. 2863, 4870, 5398 of 2008 and 147 of 2009 as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. The landowners have approached this court through the present appeals seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 15.1.1999, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), Union Territory, Chandigarh acquired 1.862 acres of land situated within the Hadbast No. 14, Village Dadumajra, Chandigarh, for development of major institutions in the West of Sector 38, Chandigarh. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 27.7.1999. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') vide his award dated 25.7.2001 assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 4,01,896/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 20.10.2007, determined the R. F. A No. 2863 of 2008 (2) market value of the acquired land @ ` 14,11,200/- per acre. It is this award which is challenged in the appeals by the landowners. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that award of the court below is not just and fair keeping in view the location and potentiality of the land. He submitted that the acquired land is surrounded by fully developed sectors but the court below has ignored this fact while assessing the market value of the acquired land. The land in question was acquired vide notification dated 15.1.1999. Prior thereto, land pertaining to this very village was acquired for the same purpose vide notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 29.8.1998. For that acquisition, this Court had determined the value @ ` 20,37,532/- per acre vide judgment in RFA No. 2989 of 2006 Union Territory, Chandigarh vs Behal Singh Gill and another, decided on 18.5.2010. Placing reliance thereon, the submission is that it is the left out portion of the large chunk of land acquired vide notification dated 29.8.1998 situated in the vicinity. The value of the land in question should be assessed at the same rate by granting further increase @ 12% per annum for the time gap in the two notifications which is about five months. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for Union Territory, Chandigarh, submitted that just and fair compensation has been awarded by the learned court below which does not call for any interference by this court. The prayer is for upholding the award. However, he could not dispute that for the acquisition carried out five months earlier in the area this court in Behal Singh Gill's case (supra) had assessed the compensation at ` 20,37,532/- per acre. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. It is admitted case of the parties that the land in question is the left out portion of the land acquired in the same area for the same purpose. It is also admitted that this court in Behal Singh Gill's case (supra), had determined the market value of the land acquired vide notification dated 29.8.1998 in the same very village @ ` 20,37,532/- per acre. The present land was acquired vide notification dated 15.1.1999 i.e. about 4 months after the earlier notification. R. F. A No. 2863 of 2008 (3) Accordingly, following the reasons recorded in Behal Singh Gill's case (supra), the value of the acquired land in the present appeals is also determined @ ` 20,37,532/- per acre. The appellants shall also be entitled to the statutory benefits available under the Act. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms. 27.4.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge