R. F. A No. 2271 of 1990 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision : 4.12.2008 1. R. F. A No. 2271 of 1990 (O&M) Mehar Chand (deceased) through LRs. ... Appellant vs Union of India .... Respondent 2. R. F. A No. 2003 of 1990 (O&M) Union of India ... Appellant vs Mehar Chand (deceased) .... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. P. C. Dhiman, Advocate, for the landowner. Mrs. Lisa Gill, Advocate, for Union Territory, Chandigarh. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of Regular First Appeal nos. 2003 and 2271 of 1990 filed by the landowner and Union of India respectively against a common award of the learned court below. The landowner has approached this court for enhancement of compensation whereas the Union of India has approached for reduction in the compensation awarded to the landowner. The facts have been extracted from R. F. A. No. 2271 of 1990. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 10.7.1964, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), Union of India acquired land in Village Kanthala, Chandigarh, for the development of Sector-29, Chandigarh. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, “the Collector”) vide his award dated 3.9.1964 assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 1,402/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowner/claimant filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 2.5.1990, determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 8,000/- per acre. R. F. A No. 2271 of 1990 (2) Learned counsel for the landowner submitted that as against Ex. A-6, Ex. A-7 an award of the land acquired in Village Burail should have been considered as Village Burail is situated adjoining to Village Kanthala where the land in question is situated. The acquisition there was carried out on 8.3.1973 and value of the acquired land was determined at Rs. 50,000/- per acre. Referring to the judgment of this court in F. A. O. No. 475 of 1983 The Union of India and another vs Amar Singh and others, decided on 15.11.1988, the submission is that a reasonable cut for the time gap be applied considering that the acquisition in the present case was made in the year 1964. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Union of India submitted that the reference court had determined the compensation relying upon a judgment of this court in R. F. A. No. 78 of 1967 Rattan Singh and others vs The State of Punjab and another decided on 4.12.1973 whereby for the acquisition of land vide same notification, the compensation payable to the landowners was assessed at Rs. 8,000/- per acre which was directed to be paid to the landowner in the present case. Accordingly, no further enhancement is possible. Referring to Ex. R-1, she pointed out that in this award, learned court made reference in para 8 to an earlier judgment in R. F. A. No. 472 of 1966 decided on 6.4.1972, where for the acquisition carried out vide notification dated 10.7.1964, the compensation was determined at Rs. 2,400/- per acre. The submission is that the amount of compensation payable to the landowner should be reduced to Rs. 2,400/- per acre. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The fact that vide judgment in Rattan Singh's case (supra) Ex. A-6, this court had determined the fair value of the land acquired vide the same notification is not disputed. The contention of the learned counsel for the landowner that as against A-6, the other award Ex. A-7 pertaining to the acquisition of Village Burail carried out in the year 1973 should be relied upon is totally misconceived even if the plea is that the land under consideration therein is located in the vicinity. Even reliance of judgment of this court in Amar Singh's case (supra), is totally misconceived to claim that a reasonable deduction for the time gap in two notifications be made. It may be added here that the acquisition in Amar Singh's case (supra) was made in R. F. A No. 2271 of 1990 (3) the year 1973 where relying upon an award for the acquisition made in 1977 certain deduction was made. If the principle followed in Amar Singh's case (supra) is applied in the present case it would mean going back by 13 years for determination of fair value of the land in the present case. The award for the acquisition carried out in 1977 is sought to be relied upon for the acquisition made in 1964 which cannot be permitted. As far as reference to earlier judgment of this court in Ex. R-1 is concerned, even reliance thereon by the counsel for the Union of India is totally misconceived as even after considering that fact the learned court below determined the compensation payable at Rs. 8,000/- per acre. And learned counsel for the Union of India did not point out as to whether any appeal was preferred against judgment referred to as Ex. R-1, where inspite of referring to earlier judgment determining compensation at Rs. 2,400/- per acre, the same was assessed at Rs. 8,000/- per acre. As against this, the best precedent available is Ex. A-6 vide which the fair value of the land acquired vide same notification was determined in the present case. In view of the earlier judgment of this court in Rattan Singh's case (supra), I do not find any reason to differ with the same as there is no independent evidence on record in the form of sale deeds/ transactions to show that the value of the acquired land as has been determined by the court below was more than what was determined therein. For the reasons recorded above, both the appeals are dismissed. 4.12.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge