R. F. A No. 1298 of 1996 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision : 19.9.2008 1. R. F. A No. 1298 of 1996 (O&M) Bachhittar Singh and others ..... Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ... Respondent 2. R. F. A No. 1066 of 1996 (O&M) Labh Singh (died) through LRs. and others ..... Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ... Respondent 3. R. F. A No. 1345 of 1996 (O&M) Swaran Singh and others ..... Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ... Respondent 4. R. F. A No. 1390 of 1996 (O&M) Baldev Singh and others ..... Appellants vs The Union Territory of Chandigarh ... Respondent 5. R. F. A No. 1405 of 1996 (O&M) Shrimati Roop Kaur ..... Appellant vs The Union Territory of Chandigarh ... Respondent 6. R. F. A No. 1560 of 1996 (O&M) Naib Singh and others ..... Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ... Respondent 7. R. F. A No. 1684 of 1996 (O&M) Bachan Singh and others ..... Appellants vs The Union Territory, Chandigarh ... Respondent 8. R. F. A No. 1900 of 1996 (O&M) Karnail Singh and others ..... Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ... Respondent R. F. A No. 1298 of 1996 2 9. R. F. A No. 2261 of 1996 (O&M) Pal Singh and others ..... Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh and others ... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. P. C. Dhiman, Advocate, for the appellants in R. F. A. Nos. 1066, 1298, 1345, 1560, 1684 and 1900 of 1996. Mr. R. K. Dhiman, Advocate, for the appellants in R. F. A. No. 1390 of 1996. Mrs. Lisa Gill and Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocates, for Union Territory, Chandigarh. Rajesh Bindal J. The present appeal has been filed by the landowners seeking further enhancement of compensation on account of acquisition of law. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 13.6.1989, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), the Chandigarh Administration acquired 20 acres of land situated in the revenue estate of Village Hallo Majra for public purpose namely for installation of Central Reserve Police Force (Camps). The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated 11.8.1989 assessed the market value of the land at Rs. 1,65,400/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, the appellants/landowners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 27.2.1996, determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 2,47,160/- per acre. It is this award of the court below, which is under challenge in the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the assessment of value of the land made by the learned court below is not in conformity with the evidence produced by them on record. The contention is that the sale-deeds Ex. P-15 to P-17 pertaining to the land in Village Raipur Khurd have been ignored totally even though that land is also situated near the land in question on the other side of the road. He further submitted that the fact that these sale-deeds are later in time i.e. after the R. F. A No. 1298 of 1996 3 issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act could not be made a ground to reject the same as has been considered by this court in L. P. A. No. 178 of 2002 – Kaka Singh and another vs U. T. Chandigarh, decided on 26.4.2006, where sale-deed considered was two years later than the acquisition. Still further the submission is that the learned court below while assessing the value of the land relied upon an earlier award of the court below for the acquisition carried out in the same village in the year 1985, where the value of the land was assessed at Rs. 1,67,000/- per acre. Granting an annual increase of 12% thereon, the value of the land was assessed at Rs. 2,47,160/- per acre. Referring to the award of 1985 acquisition, he submitted that the same was subject matter of R. F. A. No. 1956 of 1989- Hardit Singh and others vs Union of India, decided on 31.8.1994 where the value of the land was assessed at Rs. 1,95,000/- per acre. The landowners therein still dissatisfied filed L. P. A. No. 240 of 1995 – Raghbir Singh @ Balbir Singh & others vs Union Territory, Chandigarh, decided on 16.1.2006, where the value of the land was further increased to Rs. 2,24,000/- per acre. Relying on Raghbir Singh's case (supra), the claim is that once the value of the land in the award relied by the learned court below has been increased by a Division Bench of this court in Raghbir Singh's case (supra), the landowners are entitled to increase @ of 12% per annum on the value finally determined by the Division Bench of this court. Learned counsel for the respondent while not refuting the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants to the extant that the award pertaining to the acquisition of 1985 which was relied upon by the learned court below had been subject matter of appeal in Raghbir Singh's case (supra), where Division Bench of this court finally determined the value of the land at Rs. 2,24,000/- per acre as against Rs. 1,67,000/- per acre determined by the learned court below and on the basis of that the appellants are entitled to increase as was granted by the learned court below. Even the rate of annual increase granted by the court below is also not disputed, as the Union Territory, Chandigarh, is not in appeal before this court. As far as the claim of the appellants for placing reliance on the sale-deeds Ex. P-15 to P-17 is concerned, the submission is that any R. F. A No. 1298 of 1996 4 transaction which is subsequent to the date of acquisition is not a good piece of evidence. Relying upon a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in Karan Singh and others vs Union of India (1997) 8 Supreme Court Cases 186, the submission is that heavy onus is cast on the landowners to prove that after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act regarding of the subsequent sale transactions, there has been no increase in the value of the land there. It is only then under certain circumstances that such a sale- deed can be considered. She further submitted that even otherwise the sale- deeds do not pertain to the same village as the land acquired was pertaining to Village Hallo Majra whereas the sale-deeds relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants pertained to Village Raipur Khurd. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. As far as the reliance of the learned counsel for the appellants on the sale-deeds Ex. P-15 to P-17 is concerned, I do not find any merit in the submission made. A perusal of the sale-deeds shows that the same pertained to land forming part of Village Raipur Khurd. The same were executed on 25.8.1989, 18.7.1989, and 17.7.1989, whereas the land in question was acquired vide notification dated 13.6.1989. In the judgment of this court in Kaka Singh's case (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants, the subsequent sale-deed was relied upon while reducing certain percentage for the reason that sufficient evidence had been produced on record to show that between sale-deed dated 13.11.1981 to 2.2.1991 (the sale-deeds after the acquisition vide notification dated 11.1.1989) relating to the same village there was consistent increase of more than 12% per annum. Whereas a perusal of the sale-deed relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants merely one month after the acquisition showed an exorbitant increase in the price of the land. Reference can also be made at this stage to the sale-deed Ex. R-9 dated 30.8.1989 pertaining to Village Hallo Majra where the land under question is situated. In the aforesaid sale-deed land measuring 5 bighas 19 biswas was sold at an average price of Rs. 1,58,434/- per acre whereas the transactions at the same time in Village Raipur Khurd showed price ranging from Rs. 4,24,000/- to Rs. 9,04,000/- per acre. Accordingly, it would not be safe to rely on these sale transactions. Further Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Karan Singh's case (supra) opined as under:- “It is, therefore, no longer in doubt that in the R. F. A No. 1298 of 1996 5 absence of any evidence of sale of land on the date of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act, under certain conditions the post- notification transactions of sales of land can be relied upon in determining the market value of the acquired land. One of the conditions being that it must be shown before the Court by reliable evidence that there was no appreciation of the value of the land during the period of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act and the date of transaction of sale which is sought to be relied upon for the purposes of fixing the market value of the acquired land. It has also to be borne in mind that if the claimant relies on any post- notification transaction, the burden is upon him to show that the price of the land remained static and there was no upward rise in the price of the land during the period of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act and the date of transaction of sale.” Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants as far as as consideration of sale- deeds Ex. P-15 to P-17 is concerned. However, as even not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent that the appellants in the present case are entitled to revision in the value of the land as determined by the learned court below on account of increase in the value of the land acquired vide notification dated 20.11.1985 by this court in Raghbir Singh's case (supra). The learned court below while relying upon the award in that case in which the market value of the land was assessed at Rs. 1,67,000/- per acre granting an increase of 12% per annum, determined the value of the land at Rs. 2,47,160/- per acre. The value of the land was increased from Rs. 1,67,000/- per acre to Rs. 2,24,000/- per acre by this court in Raghbir Singh's case (supra). Accordingly, taking the base price of the acquired land in question at Rs. 2,24,000/- per acre and granting increase in the same R. F. A No. 1298 of 1996 6 proposition, the market value of the acquired land is hereby determined at Rs. 3,31,520/- per acre. The appellants shall also be entitled to other benefits under the Act. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms. 19.9.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge