R.F.A. No. 3026 of 2006 [1]` IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 22.7.2010 1) R.F.A. No. 3026 of 2006 (O&M) Jaspal Kaur and another .. Appellants Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh. .. Respondent 2) R.F.A. No. 3027 of 2006 Gurmail Singh .... Appellant Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 3) R.F.A. No. 3028 of 2006 Joginder Singh .... Appellant Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 4) R.F.A. No. 3029 of 2006 Narata Singh .... Appellant Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 5) R.F.A. No. 3030 of 2006 Jaswant Singh and others .... Appellants Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 6) R.F.A. No. 3031 of 2006 Baljit Kaur and another .... Appellants Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 7) R.F.A. No. 3032 of 2006 Baljit Kaur and others .... Appellants Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent R.F.A. No. 3026 of 2006 [2]` 8) R.F.A. No. 3187 of 2006 Joginder Singh .... Appellant Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 9) R.F.A. No. 3188 of 2006 Rajinder Singh .... Appellant Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 10) R.F.A. No. 3189 of 2006 Shamlat Deh of village Kajheri through its proprietors .... Appellant Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 11) R.F.A. No. 3190 of 2006 Mushtarka Malkan of village Kajheri through its proprietors .... Appellant Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 12) R.F.A. No. 3371 of 2006 Anand Singh and others .... Appellants Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 13) R.F.A. No. 3451 of 2006 Rajinder Singh and others .... Appellants Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 14) R.F.A. No. 3478 of 2006 Jit Kaur .... Appellant Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 15) R.F.A. No. 3479 of 2006 Gurmukh Singh .... Appellant Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent R.F.A. No. 3026 of 2006 [3]` 16) R.F.A. No. 3480 of 2006 Nirmal Singh and others .... Appellants Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 17) R.F.A. No. 3481 of 2006 Pritam Singh and others .... Appellants Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 18) R.F.A. No. 3683 of 2006 Union Territory, Chandigarh .... Appellant Versus Gurmukh Singh ..... Respondent 19) R.F.A. No. 3684 of 2006 Union Territory, Chandigarh .... Appellant Versus Rajinder Singh ..... Respondent 20) R.F.A. No. 3685 of 2006 Union Territory, Chandigarh .... Appellant Versus Baljit Kaur and another ..... Respondents 21) R.F.A. No. 3686 of 2006 Union Territory, Chandigarh .... Appellant Versus Gurmail Singh ..... Respondent 22) R.F.A. No. 3687 of 2006 Union Territory, Chandigarh .... Appellant Versus Baljit Kaur and others ..... Respondents 23) R.F.A. No. 3688 of 2006 Union Territory, Chandigarh .... Appellant Versus Jwala Singh (deceased) and another ..... Respondents 24) R.F.A. No. 3689 of 2006 Union Territory, Chandigarh .... Appellant Versus Gurdev Singh (deceased) and another ..... Respondents R.F.A. No. 3026 of 2006 [4]` 25) R.F.A. No. 3690 of 2006 Union Territory, Chandigarh .... Appellant Versus Jaspal Kaur and another ..... Respondents 26) R.F.A. No. 3691 of 2006 Union Territory, Chandigarh .... Appellant Versus Jit Kaur ..... Respondent 27) R.F.A. No. 3692 of 2006 Union Territory, Chandigarh .... Appellant Versus Rajinder Singh and others ..... Respondents 28) R.F.A. No. 3693 of 2006 Union Territory, Chandigarh .... Appellant Versus Narata Singh ..... Respondent 29) R.F.A. No. 3694 of 2006 and Cross Objections No.9-CI of 2007 Union Territory, Chandigarh .... Appellant Versus Smt. Randhir Kaur and others ..... Respondents 30) R.F.A. No. 3695 of 2006 Union Territory, Chandigarh .... Appellant Versus Nirmal Singh and others ..... Respondents 31) R.F.A. No. 3696 of 2006 Union Territory, Chandigarh .... Appellant Versus Jaswant Singh and others ..... Respondents 32) R.F.A. No. 3697 of 2006 Union Territory, Chandigarh .... Appellant Versus Joginder Singh ..... Respondent 33) R.F.A. No. 3698 of 2006 Union Territory, Chandigarh .... Appellant Versus Shamlat Deh village Kajheri ..... Respondent R.F.A. No. 3026 of 2006 [5]` 34) R.F.A. No. 3699 of 2006 Union Territory, Chandigarh .... Appellant Versus Mushtarka Malkan of village Kajheri through its proprietors ..... Respondent 35) R.F.A. No. 3700 of 2006 Union Territory, Chandigarh .... Appellant Versus Shamlat Deh of village Kajheri through its proprietors ..... Respondent 36) R.F.A. No. 3814 of 2006 Union Territory, Chandigarh .... Appellant Versus Joginder Singh ..... Respondent 37) R.F.A. No. 2803 of 2008 Bachan Kaur and another .... Appellants Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. P. C. Dhiman, Advocate for the land owners. Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate for Union Territory, Chandigarh. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of above mentioned appeals and cross objections, as common questions of law and facts are involved. In the appeals and cross objections filed by the land owners, they are seeking further enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned court below for the acquired land, whereas in the appeals filed by Union Territory, the prayer is for reduction in the amount of compensation awarded to the land owners. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 3026 of 2006. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 24.12.1999, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, R.F.A. No. 3026 of 2006 [6]` `the Act'), Chandigarh Administration acquired 153.325 acres of land, situated in village Kajheri for water works, Sector 52 (for 4th phase water supply). The same was followed by notification dated 16.5.2001, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') awarded compensation @ ` 9,13,853/- per acre for all kinds of land except Gair Mumkin Nadi for which rate of ` 3,50,000/- per acre was assessed. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 15,66,000/- per acre of land instead of ` 9,13,853/- per acre and ` 3,50,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin Nadi. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that for the acquisition carried out vide notification dated 3.8.1999 for the land falling in villages Kajheri, Badheri and Palsora, this court in R.F.A. No. 4238 of 2006-- Mrs. Avtar Sachdev and others v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, decided on 2.4.2009, had assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 19,40,200/- per acre and the value of the land forming part of Gair Mumkin Nadi was assessed @ ` 8,08,300/- per acre. There is a gap of four months in the two acquisitions. For this intervening period, the land owners should be granted increase @ 4%. On the other hand, learned counsel for Union Territory, Chandigarh submitted that the award pertaining to the earlier acquisition of land should not be relied upon as such for determination of fair value of the acquired land. The land owners should have produced independent evidence to show the value of the land in the area at the time of acquisition. He further submitted that the Collector had granted different compensation for the land which was plain and which was Gair Mumkin Khadan/Choe. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In the present case, the acquisition was carried out on 24.12.1999. While assessing the compensation for the acquired land, the court below relied upon the earlier award (Ex. P23) pertaining to acquisition of land of the same village vide notification dated 3.8.1999. In R.F.A. No. 4238 of 2006 –Mrs. Avtar Sachdev and others v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, filed against the award dated 1.12.2004 (Ex. P23), this court enhanced the compensation to ` 19,40,200/- per acre. Regarding value of land forming part of Gair Mumkin Nadi/Choe, the amount of compensation was assessed @ ` 8,08,300/-. Accordingly, the land owners in the present set of appeals are entitled to compensation @ ` 19,40,200/- per acre for the acquired land. As far as land forming part of Gair Mumkin Nadi/Choe is concerned, the same is assessed @ ` 8,08,300/-. R.F.A. No. 3026 of 2006 [7]` Accordingly, the appeals and the cross-objections are disposed of. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 22.7.2010 mk