RFA No.1095 of 2000 1 In the Punjab and Haryana High Court,at Chandigarh. RFA No.1095 of 2000 Decided on 18.5.2009 Ronki -- Appellant vs Union Territory,Chandigarh through its Land Acquisition Collector, Estate Office,Sector 17,Chandigarh. -- Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.P.C.Dhiman,Advocate, for the appellants in RFA Nos.1095,1105, 1167 ,1168, 1490,1491,1512,1513, 1520,1641,2360,2525,2361,1165,1166,1668,1669,1677,1795 and 2059 of 2000. Mrs. Lisa Gill,Advocate, for Union.Territory, Chandigarh Mr.R.K.Dhiman,Advocate,for appellants in RFA Nos.2344 to 2353,2666 of 2000,2037 of 2001, 2650 to 2665,2315,1894 and 2144 of 2000. Mr.Sanjiv Ghai,Advocate ( In RFA No. 2037 of 2001) Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: (Oral) A batch of 51 Regular First Appeals bearing Nos.1095, 1105, 1167, 1168, 1490, 1491, 1512, 1513, 1520, 1641, 2344 to 2353, 2360, 2525, 2666 of 2000,2037 of 2001, 2650 to 2665, 2315, 2361, 1165, 1166, 1668, 1669,1677,1795, 1894, 2059 and 2144 of 2000, is being disposed of by this common order. All the appeals have been filed by the claimants. 24 appeals have been filed against the order of Learned Addl.District Judge,Chandigarh dated 09.2.2000 and 27 appeals have been filed against RFA No.1095 of 2000 2 the order of learned Addl.District Judge, Chandigarh, dated 06.3.2000. Since identical questions of law and facts are involved in all these appeals, therefore, they are being taken up together for the purpose of disposal by the same order. For the purpose of disposal of 24 appeals, the facts are being extracted from RFA No. 1095 of 2000 (Ronki v. Union Territory,Chandigargh), and for disposal of 27 appeals, facts are being extracted from RFA No.2650 of 2000 (Achhar Singh Vs. Union Territory,Chandigarh). Briefly stated, the facts of the case taken from RFA No.1095 of 2000 are that vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (for short, 'the Act'),dated 8.7. 1994, land situated in village Palsora, in Union Territory, Chandigarh was acquired for the development of IIIrd Phase of Chandigarh (Sector 56), which was followed by a notification of declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act dated 9.1.1995. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award No.493 dated 14.3.1995 assessed the compensation @ Rs.3,38,100/- per acre which was further enhanced by the learned Addl.District Judge,Chandigarh vide his order dated 09.2.2000 to the tune of Rs. 5,36,000/- per acre. The facts of 27 appeals which are extracted from RFA No.2650 of 2000, are the same except for number of the award pronounced by the Collector which was bearing No. 494 dated 14.3.1995. The only argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, dated 22.5.1992, 51.15 acres of land of village Kajehri was acquired by the Chandigarh Administration, for a public purpose, namely for development of IIIrd Phase of Chandigarh City. Section 6 notification was issued on RFA No.1095 of 2000 3 24.7.1992. The Collector vide his award dated 27.8.1992 assessed the compensation at a flat rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. The said award was challenged by various claimants before the reference Court including Joginder Singh son of Surjan Singh by way of RFA No.454 of 1998, which was allowed by the High Court vide order dated 29.7.1999 in terms of the decision rendered in RFA No.2511 of 1997 titled “Bhajan Singh Vs. Union Territory,Chandigarh” in which compensation was assessed @ Rs. 4,87,540.25 per acre. The said judgment of Bhajan Singh rendered in RFA No.2511 of 1997 was challenged by the claimants themselves by way of L.P.A. No.58 of 2000 titled as “Bhajan Singh Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh, which was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court on 25.10.2004 setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 29.7.1999 and the matter was remanded back to the learned Single Judge for re-determining the market value of the acquired land afresh after taking into consideration all the relevant and admissible documents available on the record. After the remand, RFA No.2511 of 1997 (Bhajan Singh Vs. Union Territory,Chandigarh) has been decided by the learned Single Judge on 29.11.2006 re-assessing the compensation @ Rs.7,50,000/- per acre for the acquisition of land on 08.7.1988 in village Kajheri for the public purpose, namely for development of III Phase of Chandigarh City. The said judgment passed in RFA No.2511 of 1997 has been further considered by this Court while deciding RFA No.696 of 1998 (Joginder Singh son of Kartar Singh vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh) on 29.11.2006,whereby for the notification issued on 22.5.1992 under Section 4 of the Act in respect of land of village Kajheri which was acquired for the purpose of III Phase of Chandigarh City, the compensation RFA No.1095 of 2000 4 was assessed @ Rs. 10,12,000/- per acre. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the value of the land of village Kajheri has been considered to be equal to the value of the land of village Palsora and as the compensation in respect of the land of village Kajheri has been assessed by the learned Single Judge of this Court to the tune of Rs.10,12,000/- per acre for the acquisition dated 22.5.1992, the appellants in the present cases are entitled to further enhancement of two years and one month @ 12% per annum because in the present case, the acquisition had taken place on 08.7.1994. Against the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, Ms. Lisa Gill and Mr. Sanjiv Ghai, leaned counsel for the U.T.Chandigarh, have vehemently argued that the land of village Kajheri cannot be equated with the land of village Palsora as it is admitted by PW- 7 that the land of village Palsora is near the land of village Maloya whereas Kajheri is situated 2 Kilometers away from the acquired land. Thus, it is argued that the land of village Palsora could, at the most, be comparable with the land of village Maloya. Faced with this contention of learned counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the appellants has referred to the decision of this Court in RFA No.844 of 2000 (O&M) (Smt.Harbhajan Kaur Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh) decided on 26.3.2009 where in the land of village Palsora was acquired on 10.12.1991 for the public purpose,namely, for the development of rehabilitation of the colony in Chandigarh. In the said case, notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 24.3.1992. The Collector vide his award dated 13.5.1992 assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 2,38,500/- per acre RFA No.1095 of 2000 5 which was reassessed by the reference Court @ Rs. 4,35,600/- per acre. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that similar argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the Union Territory, Chandigarh, that the acquired land is quite close to village Maloya than village Kajheri but while deciding the said case (Smt.Harbhajan Kaur's Case (Supra), the learned Single Judge of this Court relied upon a decision of Joginder Singh's Case (Supra) in RFA No.696 of 1998 wherein the compensation has been assessed at Rs.10,12,000/- per acre as on 22.5.1992. In case of Smt.Harbhajan Kaur, learned Single Judge of this Court deducted 6% for six months from the amount of Rs.10,12,000/- per acre because notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 10.12.1991 in the case of Smt.Harbhajan Kaur and as such, the compensation was assessed @ Rs.9,51,300/- per acre. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have given my thoughtful consideration to their rival contentions. It is a common case of the parties that on issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, on 08.7.1994, land situated in village Palsora was acquired for the development of III Phase of Chandigarh City (Sector 56), for which the Collector had awarded compensation @ Rs.3,38,100/- per acre and the learned District Judge,Chandigarh on reference, awarded compensation at a flat rate of Rs. 5,36,000/- per acre. The learned District Judge, Chandigarh, while assessing the compensation @ Rs.5,36,000/- per acre has relied upon a decision rendered by this Court in RFA No.454 of 1998 (Joginder Singh son of Surjan Singh Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh) in which the land of village Kajheri acquired on 22.5.1992 was assessed @ Rs.4,87,540.25 paise RFA No.1095 of 2000 6 per acre. Since the acquisition in the present case took place in July,1994, the learned reference Court awarded Rs.10/- per square yard w.e.f. May 1992 to July,1994 amounting to Rs.48,400/- per acre over and above Rs.4,87,540.25 paise per acre, which comes to Rs.5,35,940.25 paise which was finally rounded off as Rs. 5,36,000/- per acre. No appeal has been filed by the Union Territory, Chandigarh against the award of the reference Court. It is also not in dispute that RFA No.454 of 1998 (Joginder Singh son of Surjan Singh Vs. Union Territory Chandigarh), was disposed of alongwith RFA No.696 of 1998 (Joginder Singh son of Kartar Singh Vs. Union Territory,Chandigarh) in terms of the order passed by this Court in RFA No.2511 of 1997 (Bhajan Singh Vs. Union Territory, Chandigargh), whereby compensation was assessed by the learned Single Judge of this Court @ Rs.4,87,540.25 paise per acre for the acquisition dated 22.5.1992 in respect of the land of village Kajheri. The said judgment in RFA No.2511 of 1997(Bhajan Singh Vs. Union Territory,Chandigarh), in terms of which the aforesaid two cases of Joginder Singh were disposed of, was the subject matter of LPA No.58 of 2000 having been filed by the claimants which was allowed on 25.10.2004 in which the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court dated 29.7.1999 was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh decision. The said case of Bhajan Singh, on remand, has been allowed by a learned Single Judge vide order dated 29.11.2006 enhancing the compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,50,000/- per acre whereas RFA No.696 of 1998 which was disposed of in terms of the order passed in RFA No.2511 of 1997 was also allowed by the learned Single Judge on 29.11.2006 enhancing the compensation to the tune of Rs.10,12,000/- per acre. Since the compensation in the case of Joginder Singh son of Kartar RFA No.1095 of 2000 7 Singh vs . Union Territory,Chandigarh ( RFA No. 696 of 1998) has been assessed @ Rs.10,12,000/- per acre for the acquisition which took place on 22.5.1992 and the same has been taken into consideration by this Court while deciding RFA No.844 of 2000 (Smt.Harbhajan Kaur vs. Union Territory,Chandigarh) pertaining to land of village Palsora which was acquired on 10.12.1991, I do not find any justification for not following the decision rendered in RFA No.696 of 1998 (Joginder Singh son of Kartar Singh vs. Union Territory,Chandigarh) for the purpose of further enhancement of compensation in the present case. The compensation that has been assessed in RFA No. 696 of 1998 (Joginder Singh son of Kartar Singh vs. Union Territory,Chandigarh) is for the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act dated 22.5.1992 @ Rs.10,12,000/- per acre. Thus, I find it appropriate to grant 12% increase in the present case for two years as the notification in the present case was issued on 08.7.1994. Consequently, the compensation is being assessed Rs.12,54,880/- per acre. In view of the above discussion, the present appeals filed by the claimants are allowed and the compensation is enhanced from Rs.5,36,000/- per acre to Rs.12,54,880/- per acre. It is also ordered that the claimants/appellants shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits in terms of the provisions of the Amended Act with costs of the appeals. May 18,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge Refer to Reporter-- Yes