R. F. A No. 1633 of 2000 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R. F. A No. 1633 of 2000 (O&M) Date of decision : 18.11.2010 Yadvinder Singh ..... Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. P. C. Dhiman, Advocate, for the appellants. Mrs. Lisa Gill, Advocate, for Union Territory, Chandigarh. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of appeals bearing; RFA Nos. 1633 to 1638, 1673 to 1676, 1867, 1879 of 2000, RFA No. 3237 of 2002, RFA No. 2364 of 2003, RFA No. 5087 and 5088 of 2009, as the same arise out of common acquisition. The landowners have approached this court seeking further enhancement of the compensation for the acquired land and superstructures, whereas by filing appeals, the Union Territory, Chandigarh, has prayed for reduction of compensation for the trees. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 25.7.1995, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), the State of Haryana acquired 10.51 acres of land situated within the revenue estate of Village Nizampur Kumbra, Hadbast No. 197, for construction of boundary wall and minimum security of Burial Jail, Chandigarh. The same was followed by notification dated 5.12.1995 issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, “the Collector”) vide his award dated 6.3.1996 assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 5,00,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners/claimants filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 7,12,500/- per acre and also granted compensation for superstructures and fruit/non-fruit bearing trees. It is this award which is challenged in the present set of appeals by both the parties. R. F. A No. 1633 of 2000 (2) Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that award of the court below is not just and fair keeping in view the location and potentiality of the land. He submitted that the acquired land is surrounded by fully developed sectors but the court below has ignored these factors while assessing the market value of the acquired land. The land in question was acquired vide notification dated 25.7.1995. Earlier the land pertaining to village Burail was acquired vide notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 15.10.1991 and this Court had determined the value thereof @ ` 9,85,000/- per acre vide judgment in Surjan Singh and others vs Union Territory, Chandigarh, decided on 24.9.2008. Placing reliance thereon, the submission is that the land in question is situated near the land acquired vide notification dated 15.10.1991 and the value thereof should be assessed at the same rate by granting further increase @ 15% per annum for the time gap in the two notifications which is nearly four years. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that enhancement of 12% regarding superstructures standing on the acquired land is on lower side as this court in RFA No. 579 of 2006 Smt. Akko Devi and others vs Union Territory, Chandigarh and another decided on 1.10.2008, awarded 25% increase to the landowners on the value assessed at PWD rates. On the other hand, learned counsel for Union Territory, Chandigarh submitted that just and fair compensation has been awarded by the court below after considering the evidence led by the parties. It is the left out portion of the earlier acquired land and the court below has granted considerable increase in the compensation, which does not call for any interference. No other argument was raised. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. It is admitted case of the parties that the land in question is the left out portion of the earlier acquired land for the same very purpose. It is also admitted that this court in Surjan Singh's case (supra), had determined the market value of the land acquired vide notification dated 15.10.1991 in the same area @ ` 9,85,000/- per acre. The present land was acquired vide notification dated 25.7.1995 i.e. after three years and nine months from the earlier notification. If the base is taken in terms of the value of the land as given in Surjan Singh's case (supra) reasonable increase for time gap in between two acquisitions can very well be granted. Keeping in view the time gap of 3 years and nine months between the two acquisitions, in my opinion, increase @ 10% per annum at ` 9,85,000/- per acre would be reasonable, which comes out to ` 13,54,375/- which is rounded of to ` 13,54,500/- per acre. R. F. A No. 1633 of 2000 (3) Accordingly, the value of the acquired land in the present case is determined @ ` 13,54,500/- per acre. As far as compensation on account of valuation of superstructure standing on the land is concerned, considering the principle, which is being consistently followed by this court in similar cases i.e. RFA No. 894 of 1976 Hans Raj and others vs Chandigarh Administration, decided on 8.4.1980; RFA No. 2608 of 1980 Dharam Vir and others vs Union of India decided on 18.8.1981; RFA No. 2560 of 1987 Hazura Singh vs Union of India decided on 25.2.2004; RFA No. 2340 of 1998 Suraj Bhan and others vs Union Territory, Chandigarh decided on 24.9.2008; Jai Kaur vs State of Punjab and another 1992 LACC 501 and Union of India vs Pal Singh and another (1994-3) PLR 569, it is directed that the landowners shall be entitled to compensation on account of acquisition of superstructure standing on the acquired land by granting them increase @ 25% on the value as assessed at PWD rates plus statutory benefits. To sum up, it is directed that - the land owners are held entitled to compensation for the acquired land @ ` 13,54,500/- per acre; - the landowners are also held entitled to compensation on account of acquisition of superstructure standing on the acquired land by granting them increase @ 25% on the value as assessed at PWD rates.; and - the land owners shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits available to them under the Act. The impugned award of the court below is modified to the extent mentioned above and the appeals are disposed of accordingly. 18.11.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge