RFA No. 87 of 2001 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 87 of 2001 Date of decision: 07.08.2009 Mohinder Singh ....Appellant Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. P.C. Dhiman, Advocate, Mr. D.S. Raghu, Advocate and Ms. Ekta Thakur, Advocate, for the appellants. Ms. Lisa Gill, Advocate, Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate, and Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate, for the respondent-Union Territory, Chandigarh. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This order shall dispose of (1) RFA No. 170 of 2000 titled Rattan Singh Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh, (2) RFA No. 87 of 2001 titled Mohinder Singh Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh, (3) RFA No. 88 of 2001 titled Baljit Singh and another Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh, (4) RFA No. 89 of 2001 titled Gurcharan Singh Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh, (5) RFA No. 90 of 2001 titled Surmukh Singh Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh, (6) RFA No. 2012 of 2001 titled Kirpal Singh and others Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh, (7) RFA No. 2175 of 2001 titled Jasbir Singh Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh, (8) RFA No. 4219 of 2001 titled Gurnam Singh Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh, (9) RFA No. RFA No. 87 of 2001 -2- 1650 of 2000 titled Harbans Singh Vs. Union of India, (10) RFA No. 1651 of 2000 titled Harbans Singh Vs. Union of India, (11) RFA No. 1652 of 2000 titled Harbans Singh Vs. Union of India, (12) RFA No. 1586 of 2000 titled Nirmal Singh Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh, (13) RFA No. 2798 of 2001 titled Jaswinder Kaur Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh, (14) RFA No. 2044 of 2000 titled Naib Kaur Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh, and another, (15) RFA No. 1519 of 2000 titled Jagwant Singh Gill Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh, (16) RFA No. 1517 of 2000 titled Ranjit Singh Gill Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh, (17) RFA No. 1788 of 2000 titled Rattan Singh Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh, (18) RFA No. 1518 of 2000 titled Bhagwant Singh Gill Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh, (19) RFA No. 1516 of 2000 titled Rattan Singh Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh, (20) RFA No. 1515 of 2000 titled Rajinder Kaur Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh, (21) RFA No. 1514 of 2000 titled Bhagwant Singh Gill and others Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh, as they arise out of the common award. For brevity sake, facts are being taken from RFA No. 87 of 2001 titled Mohinder Singh Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh. The Union Territory, Chandigarh issued notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 22.5.1992, to acquire the land of the appellant at village Kajheri, U.T., Chandigarh, for public purpose i.e. for rehabilitation of labour colony. After issuance of notification under Section 6 of the Act, an award was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on 27.8.1992. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the acquired RFA No. 87 of 2001 -3- land at Rs.2.00 lac per acre. The appellant being aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. Before the learned reference Court, the appellant-land owner claimed the market value to be Rs.50.00 lac per acre. The claim of the appellant-land owner was contested by the Union Territory, Chandigarh, by pleading that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector was adequate and fair, and called for no enhancement. The learned reference Court by placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in RFA No. 2511 of 1998 titled Bhajan Singh Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh, decided on 29.7.1999, assessed the compensation payable @ Rs.4,87,540.25 (Rupees four lac eighty seven thousand five hundred forty and twenty five paise only) per acre. The other statutory benefits under the Act were also awarded. Being dissatisfied, the appellant-land owners challenged the award passed by the learned reference court, claiming the compensation @ Rs.10,12,000/- (Rupees ten lac twelve thousand only) per acre. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union Territory, Chandigarh, contends, that the appellant is not entitled to compensation @ Rs.10,12,000/- (Rupees ten lac twelve thousand only) per acre, as in the grounds of appeal, amount claimed was less. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent, that the application made by the appellant for amendment of the grounds of appeal stood rejected, by this Court, and the order rejecting the amendment is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. RFA No. 87 of 2001 -4- Be, that as it may, this cannot be a ground to deny the compensation claimed, for the land acquired, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bimasha Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and another, 2008(10) Supreme Court Cases 797, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to lay down, that the claimants are not bound by the compensation claimed. The judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reads as under: - “4. The land acquisition officer fixed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.13,100 per acre for dry land and Rs.1000 for phot kharab land. On a reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the trial court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.36,200 per acre. On appeal, the High Court referred to the yield notification and price list issued by the competent authority as also the average price of both the crops in relation to the relevant year and concluded that market price of the land comes to Rs.66,550 per acre. However, the High Court refused to award compensation at the said rate on the premise that the appellant had claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.58,500 per acre. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In the impugned order the High Court, after taking note of the yield notification issued by the Government and price list notified by the competent authority for crops (both are public documents) concluded that market value of the land is Rs.66550 per acre. Therefore, the appellant's omission to make appropriate claim before the High Court after paying the requisite court fee cannot be castigated as one lacking bona fide. RFA No. 87 of 2001 -5- 6. In our view, the High Court should have, after taking note of the peculiar facts of the case and the market value determined by it, awarded higher compensation to the appellants subject to the condition of paying the balance court fee. This, having not been done, we feel that ends of justice could be met if the impugned order is suitably modified. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment is modified and the market value of the land fixed by the High Court is enhanced to Rs.66,550 per acre. This order, however, will be subject to the payment of further amount of court fee to be assessed by the Registry of the High Court. After assessment, the Registry shall intimate the deficit amount of court fee to be payable by the appellant to his counsel, which shall be paid within two months from the date intimation is received by the counsel from the High Court.” It is made clear, that if a proper court fee, as per the market value assessed has not been paid, the appellant may make good the court fee, within one month of receipt of certified copy of this order. The appeal is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in RFA No. 696 of 1998 titled Joginder Singh Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh, decided on November 29, 2006. This Court was considering the market value of the land acquired in village Kajheri, for development of third phase of Chandigarh, and notification in said case was also issued on 22.5.1992. The notification in the present case is also of 22.5.1992, and the land is also situated at the same village, therefore, by following the judgment of this Court in RFA No. 696 of 1998, the appeals are allowed, and the RFA No. 87 of 2001 -6- appellant-land owners are held entitled to compensation @ Rs.10,12,000/- (Rupees ten lac twelve thousand only) per acre. The appellant-land owners shall also be entitled to all other statutory benefits under the Act, on enhanced compensation. Appeals allowed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge August 07, 2009 R.S.