R.F.A. No. 2180 of 1990 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 18.11.2008 (1) R.F.A. No. 2180 of 1990 Smt. Balwinder Kaur .. Appellant v. Punjab State and another .. Respondents (2) R.F.A. No. 2181 of 1990 Harbhajan Singh and others .. Appellants v. The Collector .. Respondent (3) R.F.A. No. 998 of 1991 Karamjit Singh and others .. Appellants v. The Punjab State and another ` .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Ms. Lisa Gill and Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocates for the appellants. Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondents. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of a bunch of three appeals, as the same arise out of a common award of the learned court below. The land owners are in appeal before this Court against the award of the learned court below seeking further enhancement of compensation. The facts have been noticed from R.F.A. No. 2180 of 1990. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 7.3.1979, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Punjab acquired 16 acres, 6 kanals and 11 marlas of land in village Hazipur and 62 R.F.A. No. 2180 of 1990 [2] acres, 1 kanal and 6 marlas of land in village Phagwara Sharki, District Kapurthala for setting up a new Mandi Township at Phagwara. The same was followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') vide his award dated 1.10.1982, determined the market value of land at Rs. 32,000/- per acre. However, Additional District Judge, Kapurthala, on reference under Section 18 of the Act, determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 1,000/- per marla. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the land in question was acquired vide notification dated 7.9.1989, whereas the learned court below, while determining the value of the acquired land relied upon judgment (Ex. P-18), delivered by this Court in R.F.A. No. 521 of 1985—Charan Singh v. The State of Punjab and another, vide which the land which was acquired for the same purpose vide notification dated 7.3.1979, the value was assessed at Rs. 1,000/- per marla, whereas the acquisition in the present case was vide notification dated 7.9.1989. It was for the reason that initially the acquisition in the present case vide notification dated 7.3.1979 was challenged before this court, where the notification was quashed and as a result thereof, a fresh notification under Section 4 of the Act had to be issued on 7.9.1989 for the land in question. He further submitted that grant of compensation to the appellants at the same rate which was granted for acquisition more than 10 years ago would be totally unfair. Relying upon a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Om Parkash (D) by Lrs. And others v. Union of India and another, AIR 2004 (SC) 4135 and of this Court in Nand Lal and others v. State of Haryana and another, 2007(3) RCR (Civil) 303, the submission is that an annual increase of 12% should be granted for the intervening period for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land. As far as other evidence produced on record is concerned, the submission is that the sale deeds produced on record are pertaining to the years 1980 and 1981, where the value is shown between Rs. 2,215/- to Rs. 2,550/- per marla. Even if increase for the intervening period is granted thereon and a reasonable cut is applied on account of the sale deeds for being smaller plots, still the appellants shall be entitled to further increase in the amount of compensation. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that fair assessment of the value of the acquired land has been made by the learned court below. Merely because the acquisition in the present case was earlier set aside and the State per force had to issue fresh notification does not mean that the appellants shall be entitled to the rates which should be more than the rates granted to the persons, whose land was acquired vide notification dated 17.3.1979, as initially the R.F.A. No. 2180 of 1990 [3] entire land was part of the same acquisition proceedings. Even otherwise, the submission is that there is no evidence on record to justify that there was increase in the prices during the intervening period. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The fact that the land in question was acquired vide notification dated 7.9.1989 for the purpose of setting up of New Mandi Township at Phagwara, whereas the judgment of this Court in Charan Singh's case (supra), which has been relied upon, is pertaining to the determination of fair value of the land acquired vide notification dated 7.3.1979 is not disputed. There is a gap of 10 years and 6 months in between. The fact cannot be disputed that after the acquisition of land in the year 1979, Mandi had already been developed and it was part of the land which remained under litigation, the acquisition of which was set aside and had to be re- notified. Meaning thereby that the area in the vicinity of the land had already been developed. There is other evidence on record in the form of sale deeds (Ex. P-3, Ex. P-8 and Ex. P-14) showing the value, whereby small plots measuring 10 marlas and 15 marlas were sold for the price ranging between Rs. 2,215/- to Rs. 2,550/- per marla. The same being quite old cannot be considered for the purpose of determination of fair value. These, in any case, show the prices of the land in the area. However, the award of this Court pertaining to the acquisition earlier made for the same purpose can very well be relied upon. Keeping in view the fact that there is a difference of 10 years and 6 months in the two acquisitions and the period is from 1979 to 1989, in my opinion, for the difference of this period, an increase of 75% can very well be granted to the appellants herein. Accordingly, adding Rs. 750/- per marla to Rs. 1,000/- per marla already granted by this Court in Charan Singh's case (supra) for the acquisition carried out in the year 1979, the value of the acquired land is determined at Rs. 1,750/- per marla. The appellants shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available under the Act. Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of in the above terms. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 18.11.2008 mk