RFA No. 1298 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 1298 of 2003 Date of Decision: 6.08.2009 Union of India ..Appellant Vs. Labh Singh & Ors. ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mss.Lisa Gill, Advocate and Mr.Deepak Sharma, Advocate, Mr.Gurinderjit Singh, Advocate, for appellant/Union of India. Mr.Rajiv Kataria, Advocate, with Mr.C.S.Rana, Advocate, Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, Mr.B.K.Bagri, Advocate, Mr.D.S.Raghu, Advocate, Mr.B.R.Gupta, Advocate, Vinod K.Sharma,J. This order shall dispose of RFA Nos. RFA No.1298 of 2003, 1299 to 1309, 1602 of 2003; 4447 to 4455, 4548 to 4550 of 200, 2695 of RFA No. 1298 of 2003 2 2004, 2592 of 2006, 2623 to 2625, 2852 and 2853 of 2006, 1068,2330 and 2331 of 2007, titled Union of India Vs. Labh Singh & Ors.; Union of India Vs. Prem Singh & Ors., Union of India Vs. Balwant Singh & Ors., Union of India Vs. Rulda Singh & Ors., Union of India Vs. Ajmer Singh & Ors., Union of India Vs. Jaspal Singh, Union of India Vs. Charan Singh, Union of India Vs. Nachhattar Singh, Union of India Vs. Sucha Singh & Anr., Union of India Vs. Mewa Singh & Ors., Union of India Vs. Megh & Ors., Union of India Vs. Bahadur Singh & Anr., Ajmer Singh Vs. Union of India, Megh Singh Vs. Union of India, Charan Singh Vs. Union of India, Labh Singh Vs. Chandigarh Administration, Nachhattar Singh Vs. Chandigarh Administration,, Mewa Singh Vs. Union of India, Megh Singh Vs. Union of India, Jaspal Singh Vs. Union of India, Balwant Singh Vs. Chandigarh Administration,, Harjeet Singh & Ors. Vs. Chandigarh Administration, Sucha Singh & Anr. Vs. Union of India, Bahadur Singh Vs. Union of India, Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh Vs. Joginder Singh, Darshan Kumar Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh, Bimla Rani Vs. Union of India, Chandigarh administration Vs. Miss Sushila Chaudhary, Chandigarh administration Vs. Dilbagh Singh, Chandigarh Administration Vs. Rameshhar Dass Kaushal Des Raj Gupta Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh, Sushil Kumar Gupta Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh, Miss Sushila Chaudhary Vs. Chandigarh Administration, Dilbagh Singh Vs. Chandigarh Administration, Rameshwar Dass Kaushal Vs. Chandigarh Administration, respectively. RFA No. 1298 of 2003 3 For the sake of brevity facts are being taken from RFA No.1298 of 2003 titled Union of India Vs. Labh Singh & Ors,. Union territory of Chandigarh issued a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act) for acquisition of the land for public purposes namely for construction of outfall severage and sewerage treatment plant by the Notified Area Committee, U.T., Chandigarh on 10.4.1990. Declaration under section 6 of the Act was issued on 30.7.1990. Notification under section 4 of the Act in respect of acquired land of Mauli Jagran was issued on 12.9.1999. Land Acquisition Collector passed an award on 23.4.1991 and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.2 lacs (Rupees two lac only) per acre. Land-owners/respondents being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, sought reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act claiming that the market value of the land was not less than Rs.40/- lacs (forty lacs only) per acre, on the ground that the acquired land was situated between two big cities i.e. Panchkula and Chandigarh, and therefore, has great potential value. Acquired land is situated on the road leading from Railway station, Chandigarh to village Baltana. It was also the case of the respondent/claimants that the locality and situation of land had immense value for the purposes of residential and commercial area, though at the time of notification land was being used as agricultural land. It was also the case of the land-owners that near the acquired land, Notified Area Committee had auctioned the residential and RFA No. 1298 of 2003 4 commercial plots at much higher price. References were contested by the Union Territory, Chandigarh by asserting therein that the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Collector was adequate and fair, which did not call for any enhancement. It was pleaded that the acquired land was agricultural land having no potentiality. The respondent/land owners in support of their claim examined Jasbir Singh PW 1, Ram Asre PW 2, Vinod Kumar PW 3, Rattan Singh PW 4 and also tendered copy of judgment passed by Additional District Judge, Chandigarh as Ex.P.4., whereas U.T.Chandigarh State relied upon copies of sale deeds Ex.R.1 to R.3. On the pleadings of the parties the reference court framed the following issues:- “1. What was the market value of the land at the time of Notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. If so to what compensation, if any, they are entitled? OPA 2. Whether petitioners are entitled for severance charges due to the division of their land? OPA 3. Relief. On appreciation of evidence the learned reference court held that the acquired land was situated between Chandigrh and Panchkula. The village Raipur Kalan had the facilities of school, bus stand, sewerage, hospital, market, electricity and shops etc and came to the conclusion, that the acquired land had potentiality of being used as residential and RFA No. 1298 of 2003 5 commercial. It was held that the land, therefore, could not be treated to be agricultural land as contended by the appellant. Land owners in support of their claim relied upon sale deed Ex.P.1 dated 17.7.1989 executed much prior to acquisition of land. It was claimed that it was the best piece of evidence to determine the market value. The sale deed was in respect of village Raipur Khurd where as the land acquired was of village Raipur Kalan. The distance between the two villages is about 1 KM. The learned reference court, therefore, held that village Raipur Kalan does not have same potentiality as village Raipur Khurd, and Ex.P.1 was, therefore, ignored. Learned reference court relied on award Ex.P.4 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh vide which the market value of land acquired in village Manimajra was assessed at Rs.4,35,600/- (Rupees four lacs thirty five thousand and six hundred only). In the said case, notification was issued on 5.6.1989, whereas notification qua the land sought to be acquired was dated 10.4.1990. It was further pleaded that increase of 12 per cent per year on the amount of Rs.4,35,600/- (Four lacs thirty five thousand and six hundred only) was to be added to arrive at market value Basis for this contention was that, the land sought to be acquired also stood registered in the revenue estate of village Manimajra. No increase on the award was given and the learned reference court, and the market value of the acquired land was assessed as RFA No. 1298 of 2003 6 Rs.4,35,600/- (Four lacs thirty five thousand and six hundred only). Sale deeds relied upon by the Union Territory were ignored as the vendor and vendees were not produced, to formally exhibit the sale deed. Learned counsel for the appellant/Union of India has challenged the finding of learned reference court on issue No.1 primarily on the plea that the learned reference court wrongly ignored sale deeds Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3 by placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.P.State Road Transport Corpn. Vs. P.Venkaih & Others AIR 1997 SC 2600. The judgment relied upon stood overruled in the case of Cement Corporation of India etc. Vs. Purya and others AIR 2004 SC 4830. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that reliance on Ex.P.4 was also misplaced as the acquired land was treated to be falling in village Manimajra though the land was, in fact, situated at Raipur Kalan. Learned counsel for the respondents/land owners on the other hand claimed that the market value deserves to be enhanced further as per Ex.P.4 on which reliance was placed to assess the market value, was challenged by the land owners in RFA No.1789 of 2000 Kamla Rani Vs. U.T., Chandigarh and this court allowed the appeal on 30.1.2009 and enhanced the compensation to Rs.151/- per sq. yards. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents/ landowners who have also filed appeal for enhancement is that, the market value be fixed at the rate of Rs.160/- per square yard by giving 12 per cent RFA No. 1298 of 2003 7 increase per annum on assessed value, in view of the fact that the notification under Section 4 of the Act in this case was dated 10.4.1990 whereas in the case of Kamla Rani Vs,.U.T., Chandigarh (supra) it was dated 15.6.1989. On consideration of the matter, I find force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. Learned reference court erred in ignoring the sale deed relied upon by the appellant merely for want of examination of vendor or vendee by placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.P.State Road Transport Corpn. Vs. P.Venkaih & Others (supra), which stands overruled in Cement Corporation of India etc. Vs. Purya and others (supra). Furthermore, learned reference court wrongly held the land to be situated in Manimajra. Rejection of sale deed Ex.P.1 was also not justified as the court could always look into the sale deed qua adjoining land, if no sale deed qua nearby land was available. The award of the learned reference court, therefore, cannot be sustained in law. All these appeals are allowed. The award of the learned reference court is set aside, and the case is remanded back to the reference court for determining the market value after giving opportunity to the parties to lead additional evidence in support of their claim. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned reference court on 5.10.2009. 6.08.2009 (Vinod K.Sharma) rp Judge