R.F.A. No. 727 of 2001 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: February 04, 2009 (1) R.F.A. No. 727 of 2001 (O&M) Narinder Singh ....Appellant Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (2) R.F.A. No. 728 of 2001 (O&M) Charanjit Singh @ Ghola ....Appellant Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (3) R.F.A. No. 729 of 2001 (O&M) Gurdev Singh and another ....Appellants Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (4) R.F.A. No. 730 of 2001 (O&M) Mrs. Mohini Sodhi and others ....Appellants Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (5) R.F.A. No. 731 of 2001 (O&M) Rakesh Kumar ....Appellant Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent R.F.A. No. 727 of 2001 [ 2] (6) R.F.A. No. 762 of 2001 (O&M) Gurnam Singh ....Appellant Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (7) R.F.A. No. 763 of 2001 (O&M) Gurnam Singh and another ....Appellants Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (8) R.F.A. No. 764 of 2001 (O&M) Bhajan Singh ....Appellant Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (9) R.F.A. No. 775 of 2001 (O&M) Bhag Singh and another ....Appellants Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (10) R.F.A. No. 776 of 2001 (O&M) Amar Kaur ....Appellant Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (11) R.F.A. No. 777 of 2001 (O&M) Charan Singh and another ....Appellants Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent R.F.A. No. 727 of 2001 [ 3] (12) R.F.A. No. 789 of 2001 (O&M) Baldev Singh and another ....Appellants Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (13) R.F.A. No. 834 of 2001 (O&M) Gurinder Singh and others ....Appellants Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (14) R.F.A. No. 1763 of 2001 (O&M) Jagir Kaur and others ....Appellants Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (15) R.F.A. No. 2018 of 2001 (O&M) Sadhu Singh ....Appellant Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (16) R.F.A. No. 2015 of 2002 (O&M) Paul Singh and others ....Appellants Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (17) R.F.A. No. 2524 of 2002 (O&M) Bhajan Singh ....Appellant Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent R.F.A. No. 727 of 2001 [ 4] (18) R.F.A. No.2525 of 2002 (O&M) Mohini Sodhi ....Appellant Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (19) R.F.A. No. 2781 of 2002 (O&M) Sukhdev Singh ....Appellant Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (20) R.F.A. No. 3041 of 2002 (O&M) Suraj Parkash and another ....Appellants Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (21) R.F.A. No. 3141 of 2002 (O&M) Harvinder Kaur and another ....Appellants Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (22) R.F.A. No. 3231 of 2002 (O&M) Kamal Atri and others ....Appellants Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (23) R.F.A. No. 3232 of 2002 (O&M) Mohan Singh and others ....Appellants Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh and another ...Respondents R.F.A. No. 727 of 2001 [ 5] (24) R.F.A. No. 3233 of 2002 (O&M) Kuldip Singh and others ....Appellants Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (25) R.F.A. No. 3429 of 2002 (O&M) Narang Singh and another ....Appellants Versus Chandigarh Administration, UT, Chandigarh and others ...Respondents (26) R.F.A. No. 3484 of 2002 (O&M) Pawan Kumar Bansal ....Appellant Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (27) R.F.A. No. 3579 of 2002 (O&M) Gurmail Singh ....Appellant Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (28) R.F.A. No. 3586 of 2002 (O&M) Joginder Singh and others ....Appellants Versus Chandigarh Administration, UT, Chandigarh and another ...Respondents (29) R.F.A. No. 3618 of 2002 (O&M) Sukhwinder Kaur Minhas and another ....Appellants Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent R.F.A. No. 727 of 2001 [ 6] (30) R.F.A. No. 836 of 2003 (O&M) Amarjit Kaur ....Appellant Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (31) R.F.A. No. 837 of 2003 (O&M) Kuldeep Singh ....Appellant Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (32) R.F.A. No. 838 of 2003 (O&M) Ajay Pal Singh and others ....Appellants Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (33) R.F.A. No. 839 of 2003 (O&M) Bakhtawar Singh and others ....Appellants Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (34) R.F.A. No. 840 of 2003 (O&M) Jarnail Singh ....Appellant Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (35) R.F.A. No. 841 of 2003 (O&M) Bakhtawar Singh and others ....Appellants Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent R.F.A. No. 727 of 2001 [ 7] (36) R.F.A. No. 842 of 2003 (O&M) Kuldeep Singh ....Appellant Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (37) R.F.A. No. 1092 of 2003 (O&M) Nar Singh ....Appellant Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (38) R.F.A. No. 1093 of 2003 (O&M) Sirijiwan Lal Seghal ....Appellant Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (39) R.F.A. No. 1241 of 2003 (O&M) Charan Singh and another ....Appellants Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (40) R.F.A. No. 1322 of 2003 (O&M) Sadhu Singh ....Appellant Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (41) R.F.A. No. 1323 of 2003 (O&M) Smt. Rajinder Kaur ....Appellant Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent R.F.A. No. 727 of 2001 [ 8] (42) R.F.A. No. 1324 of 2003 (O&M) Bhopal Singh and another ....Appellants Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (43) R.F.A. No. 1326 of 2003 (O&M) Bhopal Singh and others ....Appellants Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (44) R.F.A. No. 1327 of 2003 (O&M) Smt. Tajinder Kaur ....Appellant Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (45) R.F.A. No. 1328 of 2003 (O&M) Sarabjit Singh ....Appellant Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (46) R.F.A. No. 1329 of 2003 (O&M) Chhinder Singh ....Appellant Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (47) R.F.A. No. 1330 of 2003 (O&M) Kulwant Singh and another ....Appellants Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent R.F.A. No. 727 of 2001 [ 9] (48) R.F.A. No. 1331 of 2003 (O&M) Ajay Pal Singh ....Appellant Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (49) R.F.A. No. 1332 of 2003 (O&M) Bhopal Singh ....Appellant Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (50) R.F.A. No. 1555 of 2003 (O&M) Surjit Singh ....Appellant Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (51) R.F.A. No. 1557 of 2003 (O&M) Baldev Singh and others ....Appellants Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (52) R.F.A. No. 1582 of 2003 (O&M) Kuldeep Singh and others ....Appellants Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (53) R.F.A. No. 2475 of 2003 (O&M) Dalbir Singh and another ....Appellants Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent R.F.A. No. 727 of 2001 [ 10] (54) R.F.A. No. 2476 of 2003 (O&M) Bhopal Singh and others ....Appellants Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (55) R.F.A. No. 2477 of 2003 (O&M) Bhopal Singh and others ....Appellants Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (56) R.F.A. No. 2506 of 2003 (O&M) Smt. Tej Kaur ....Appellant Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (57) R.F.A. No. 4722 of 2003 (O&M) Kamal Atri and others ....Appellants Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (58) R.F.A. No. 4723 of 2003 (O&M) Smt. Sona Devi ....Appellant Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (59) R.F.A. No. 4724 of 2003 (O&M) Mohan Singh ....Appellant Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent R.F.A. No. 727 of 2001 [ 11] +(60) R.F.A. No. 4725 of 2003 (O&M) Prem Lata ....Appellant Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (61) R.F.A. No. 4726 of 2003 (O&M) Sohan Singh ....Appellant Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (62) R.F.A. No. 4727 of 2003 (O&M) Mohan Singh and another ....Appellants Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (63) R.F.A. No. 1446 of 2004 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ....Appellant Versus Mohan Singh ...Respondent (64) R.F.A. No. 1447 of 2004 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ....Appellant Versus Suraj Parkash and another ...Respondents (65) R.F.A. No. 1448 of 2004 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ....Appellant Versus Kuldeep Singh ...Respondent R.F.A. No. 727 of 2001 [ 12] (66) R.F.A. No. 1449 of 2004 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ....Appellant Versus Sohan Singh ...Respondent (67) R.F.A. No. 1450 of 2004 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ....Appellant Versus Charanjit Singh ...Respondent (68) R.F.A. No. 1451 of 2004 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ....Appellant Versus Baldev Singh ...Respondent (69) R.F.A. No. 1452 of 2004 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ....Appellant Versus Smt. Prem Lata ...Respondent (70) R.F.A. No. 1453 of 2004 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ....Appellant Versus Mohan Singh and another ...Respondents (71) R.F.A. No. 1454 of 2004 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ....Appellant Versus Kamal Atri and others ...Respondents R.F.A. No. 727 of 2001 [ 13] (72) R.F.A. No. 1455 of 2004 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ....Appellant Versus Smt. Sona Devi ...Respondent (73) R.F.A. No. 1456 of 2004 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ....Appellant Versus Kuldeep Singh and another ...Respondents (74) R.F.A. No. 2324 of 2004 (O&M) Jeet Kaur and another ....Appellants Versus Union of India and another ...Respondents (75) R.F.A. No. 2325 of 2004 (O&M) Shyam Singh and others ....Appellants Versus Union of India ...Respondent (76) R.F.A. No. 2326 of 2004 (O&M) Balbir Singh and others ....Appellants Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents (77) R.F.A. No. 2357 of 2004 (O&M) Sanjeev Kumar ....Appellant Versus Union of India ...Respondent R.F.A. No. 727 of 2001 [ 14] (78) R.F.A. No. 2358 of 2004 (O&M) Narinder Singh ....Appellant Versus Union of India ...Respondent (79) R.F.A. No. 2359 of 2004 (O&M) Bikram Singh ....Appellant Versus Union of India ...Respondent (70) R.F.A. No. 2360 of 2004 (O&M) Narinder Singh and another ....Appellants Versus Union of India ...Respondent (81) R.F.A. No. 2361 of 2004 (O&M) Rajinder Singh ....Appellant Versus Union of India ...Respondent (82) R.F.A. No. 2362 of 2004 (O&M) Gurdip Singh ....Appellant Versus Union of India ...Respondent (83) R.F.A. No. 2363 of 2004 (O&M) Bhupinder Singh ....Appellant Versus Union of India ...Respondent R.F.A. No. 727 of 2001 [ 15] (84) R.F.A. No. 2364 of 2004 (O&M) Pritpal Singh ....Appellant Versus Union of India ...Respondent (85) R.F.A. No. 2365 of 2004 (O&M) Manjit Kaur and others ....Appellants Versus Union of India ...Respondent (86) R.F.A. No. 2366 of 2004 (O&M) Sukhdev Singh ....Appellant Versus Union of India ...Respondent (87) R.F.A. No. 2367 of 2004 (O&M) Kulbir Singh ....Appellant Versus Union of India ...Respondent (88) R.F.A. No. 2368 of 2004 (O&M) Daljit Singh ....Appellant Versus Union of India ...Respondent (89) R.F.A. No. 2369 of 2004 (O&M) Arvinder Singh ....Appellant Versus Union of India ...Respondent R.F.A. No. 727 of 2001 [ 16] (90) R.F.A. No. 2370 of 2004 (O&M) Smt. Krishna Devi and others ....Appellants Versus Union of India ...Respondent (91) R.F.A. No. 2371 of 2004 (O&M) Bhupinder Kaur ....Appellant Versus Union of India ...Respondent (92) R.F.A. No. 2372 of 2004 (O&M) Brahmjit Singh ....Appellant Versus Union of India ...Respondent (93) R.F.A. No. 2373 of 2004 (O&M) Padam Singh ....Appellant Versus Union of India ...Respondent (94) R.F.A. No. 2374 of 2004 (O&M) Puran Singh and another ....Appellants Versus Union of India ...Respondent (95) R.F.A. No. 2375 of 2004 (O&M) Chandrawati ....Appellant Versus Union of India ...Respondent R.F.A. No. 727 of 2001 [ 17] (96) R.F.A. No. 2376 of 2004 (O&M) Paramjit Singh ....Appellant Versus Union of India ...Respondent (97) R.F.A. No. 2377 of 2004 (O&M) Baldev Singh and another ....Appellants Versus Union of India ...Respondent (98) R.F.A. No. 2378 of 2004 (O&M) Baldev Singh and another ....Appellants Versus Union of India ...Respondent (99) R.F.A. No. 2411 of 2004 (O&M) Satish Kumar ....Appellant Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (100) R.F.A. No. 2435 of 2004 (O&M) Bikram Singh and others ....Appellants Versus Union of India ...Respondent (101) R.F.A. No. 2437 of 2004 (O&M) Jeet Kaur and another ....Appellants Versus Union of India and another ...Respondents R.F.A. No. 727 of 2001 [ 18] (102) R.F.A. No. 2498 of 2004 (O&M) Karun Raghuvanshi and others ....Appellants Versus Union of India ...Respondent (103) R.F.A. No. 2499 of 2004 (O&M) Dilbagh Singh and others ....Appellants Versus Union of India ...Respondent (104) R.F.A. No. 2500 of 2004 (O&M) Brahamjit Singh and another ....Appellants Versus Union of India ...Respondent (105) R.F.A. No. 2501 of 2004 (O&M) Baljit Singh and others ....Appellants Versus Union of India ...Respondent (106) R.F.A. No. 236 of 2005 (O&M) Rattan Devi and others ....Appellants Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents (107) R.F.A. No. 237 of 2005 (O&M) Shamsher Singh and others ....Appellants Versus Union of India and another ...Respondents R.F.A. No. 727 of 2001 [ 19] (108) R.F.A. No. 238 of 2005 (O&M) Shamsher Singh and others ....Appellants Versus Union of India and another ...Respondents (109) R.F.A. No. 239 of 2005 (O&M) Leela Devi and others ....Appellants Versus Union of India ...Respondent (110) R.F.A. No. 240 of 2005 (O&M) Leela Devi and others ....Appellants Versus Union of India ...Respondent (111) R.F.A. No. 241 of 2005 (O&M) Jaswant Singh and others ....Appellants Versus Union of India ...Respondent (112) R.F.A. No. 242 of 2005 (O&M) Shamsher Singh and others ....Appellants Versus Union of India ...Respondent (113) R.F.A. No. 243 of 2005 (O&M) Leela Devi and others ....Appellants Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents R.F.A. No. 727 of 2001 [ 20] (114) R.F.A. No. 251 of 2005 (O&M) Prem Singh and others ....Appellants Versus Union of India ...Respondent (115) R.F.A. No. 252 of 2005 (O&M) Smt. Janki Devi ....Appellant Versus Union of India ...Respondent (116) R.F.A. No. 429 of 2005 (O&M) Sukhdev Singh and others ....Appellants Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents (117) R.F.A. No. 430 of 2005 (O&M) Prem Singh and others ....Appellants Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents (118) R.F.A. No. 431 of 2005 (O&M) Satpal Singh and others ....Appellants Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents (119) R.F.A. No. 2114 of 2005 (O&M) Mohan Singh ....Appellant Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent R.F.A. No. 727 of 2001 [ 21] (120) R.F.A. No. 3636 of 2008 (O&M) Ram Raj ....Appellant Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (121) R.F.A. No. 3637 of 2008 (O&M) Gaya Prasad ....Appellant Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: S/ Shri P. C. Dhiman, D. S. Raghu, Rajesh Kumar and R. K. Dhiman, Advocates for the land owners. Ms. Lisa Gill, Ms. Alka Chatrath, Mr. Vishal Sodhi and Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocates for Union Territory, Chandigarh. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of a bunch of 121 appeals, as the same arise out of common acquisition. R.F.A. Nos. 727 to 731, 762 to 764, 775 to 777, 789, 834, 1763, 2018 of 2001, 2015, 2524, 2525, 2781, 3041, 3141, 3231 to 3233, 3429, 3484, 3579, 3586, 3618 of 2002, 836 to 842, 1092, 1093, 1241, 1322 to 1324, 1326 to 1332, 1555, 1557, 1582, 2475 to 2477, 2506, 4722 to 4727 of 2003, 2324 to 2326, 2357 to 2378, 2411, 2435, 2437, 2498 to 2501 of 2004, 236 to 243, 251, 252, 429 to 431, 2114 of 2005, 3636 and 36377 of 2008 have been filed by the land owners seeking further enhancement of compensation. R.F.A. Nos. 1446 to 1456 of 2004 have been filed by Union Territory, Chandigarh seeking reduction of compensation on account of acquisition of land. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Chandigarh Administration vide notification dated 3.7.1997, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), acquired the land within the revenue estate of village Nizampur Kumbra for development as Sector 51, Chandigarh. The same was R.F.A. No. 727 of 2001 [ 22] followed by notification dated 30.6.1998, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of the land at Rs. 10,86,500/- per acre. The land owners feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Collector, filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below upheld the award of the Collector. Vide another notification dated 3.7.1997, issued under Section 4 of the Act, Chandigarh Administration acquired the land of neighbouring villages Nizampur Burail . The Collector assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 5,91,200/- per acre. The land owners feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Collector, filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 12,00,000/- per acre. Learned counsels for the land owners submitted that acquisition in the present case is pertaining to the land of villages Nizampur Khumbra, Nizampur Burail and Jhumru. The notification for acquisition was issued on 3.7.1997. It is submitted though there is other evidence on record, the learned court below while passing the impugned award had referred to an earlier judgment of this Court in R.F.A. No. 2169 of 1998 –Sukhpal Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, where the acquisition was for land falling in village Jhumru acquired vide notification dated 11.10.1991 was determined at Rs. 5,50,000/- per acre and found that the value of the acquired land, as was determined by the Collector at Rs. 10,86,500/- per acre, was fair enough. They further submitted that in the Letters Patent Appeal filed against the aforesaid judgment in Sukhpal Singh's case (supra), the matter was remanded to the learned Single Judge, where this Court on reconsideration of the matter in R.F.A. No. 2326 of 1998 –Som Nath and others v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, decided on 3.9.2008 determined the value at Rs. 9,85,000/- per acre. Reference was made to another judgment of this Court in R.F.A. No. 2340 of 1998 –Surjan Singh and others v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, decided on 24.9.2008 where for the land pertaining to village Burail vide notification dated 15.10.1991, the value was determined at Rs. 9,85,000/- per acre. Another reliance was placed upon judgment in R.F.A. No. 696 of 1998— Joginder Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, decided on 29.11.2006, where for acquisition of land vide notification dated 22.5.1992 pertaining to village Kajheri for development of third phase of Chandigarh, this Court relying upon the earlier judgment in R.F.A. No. 2511 of 1997 –Bhajan Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, decided on 29.11.2006, and granting increase at the rate of 10% per R.F.A. No. 727 of 2001 [ 23] annum thereon for the time gap in different notifications, determined the market value at Rs. 10,12,000/- per acre. Further reference was made to the statement of PW1-Charan Dass, Senior Assistant, Chandigarh Housing Board, wherein he stated that vide letter dated 16.8.1991 (Ex. P1), Chandigarh Administration had allotted land @ Rs. 500/- per square yard to the Chandigarh Housing Board on chunk basis for further allotment to the Societies @ Rs. 750/- per square yard in Sectors 48 and 49 on 99 years lease basis. They further submitted that vide letter (Ex. P3), another chunk of land falling in Sector 61 was allotted by Chandigarh Administration to Chandigarh Housing Board @ Rs. 850/- per square yard on lease hold basis. They also referred to the statement of PW6-Multan Chand, Clerk in the office of Chandigarh Housing Board, who produced letter dated 1.2.2000 issued by Chandigarh Administration, wherein the rates for allotment of land to the Cooperative Society in Chandigarh on big chunk basis was revised to Rs. 2,500/- per square yard w.e.f. 1.1.1998. They further submitted that the land is situated near the already urbanised area of Chandigarh and this was last chunk of land which was available in Chandigarh towards Mohali. The entire area abutting the acquired land in Punjab falling in District Mohali was already developed. The prayer is made for grant of increase @ 12% per annum on the value of the land determined by this Court for acquisition, which was carried out vide notification dated 11.10.1991, where the value was determined at Rs. 9,85,000/- per acre. The time gap in two acquisition is nearly six years. In R.F.A. No. 4724 of 2003, it is submitted that the learned court below had merely given 15% increase on the value of the super structure, as was determined by the Collector as against the judgment of this Court granting increase @ 25% thereon. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in R.F.A. No. 663 of 2004 –Union Territory, Chandigarh v. Sajjan Singh, decided on 2.8.2006. Another contention raised is with regard to grant of increase on the value of fruit trees as were standing on the acquired land. It is submitted that though the value has been determined as per Dr. Nijjar formula, however, the percentage of increase, as was required to be given considering the price index, has not been awarded. The price index for the year 1985 was 124 which increased to 325 in the year 1997. Hence, there was a difference of 201. The increase granted by the learned court below is merely 162% which deserves to be enhanced to 201%. In R.F.A. No. 2114 of 2005, the contention raised is that the learned court below has upheld the award of the Collector granting only the scrap value of R.F.A. No. 727 of 2001 [ 24] the super structure, whereas in other cases, the reference court had awarded increase of 15% on the value of the super structure, as was determined at PWD rates by the Collector. In some of the cases, even 25% increase has been granted in consonance with the judgments of this Court. Accordingly, the land owners in the present case are also entitled to the value of the super structure as determined by the Collector plus 25% increase thereon. On the other hand, learned counsel for Union Territory submitted that the judgments as such cannot be relied upon for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land, when there is independent evidence on record in the form of sale deeds produced by the land owners. There is evidence in the form of sale deeds (Ex. P43 and Ex. P48) on record. Even otherwise, the judgments, which have been relied upon by the land owners in R.F.A. Nos. 2511 of 1997, 696,2326 and 2340 of 1998 pertain to different village or the acquisition therein was much prior to the acquisition in the present case. As far as valuation of trees is concerned, reliance was placed upon a judgment of this Court in Sajjan Singh's case (supra) where this Court had already upheld the determination of value of super structure and the fruit trees, as was awarded by the learned Reference Court, where increase of 162% in the value of fruit bearing trees assessed by the learned Reference Court was upheld and the increase of 25% on the value of super structure, as was determined by the court below. Another argument raised is that construction in some of the cases having been raised without any permission from the competent authority and in violation of Periphery Control Act 1952, the land owners are not entitled to any compensation for the super structure and all what can be granted to them is the scrap value thereof. Further reference was made to the evidence led by the State in the form of sale deeds pertaining to land of Village Nizampur Burail, which according to learned counsel for the Union Territory have not been considered at all. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. Learned counsel for the Union Territory could not dispute the fact stated by learned counsel for the land owners that the judgments, which have been referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the land owners, have not been challenged by the Union Territory any further. As far as determination of value of the acquired land is concerned, I do not find any merit in the contentions raised by learned counsel for Union R.F.A. No. 727 of 2001 [ 25] Territory to the effect that earlier judgments of this Court pertaining to the acquisition of land of the same village and acquired for the same purpose should not be relied upon and as against that merely some sale deeds produced on record by the parties should be relied upon. The fact cannot be disputed that on earlier occasion, when the value of the adjoining acquired land was determined by this court, the entire evidence produced by the parties was considered. On the basis of the material on record, it cannot be concluded that during this intervening period, the value of the property has gone down. For the purpose, we may refer to document (Ex. P1), whereby vide letter dated 16.8.1991, Chandigarh Administration had allotted big chunk of land to Chandigarh Housing Board @ Rs. 500/- per square yard for further allotment to the Cooperative Societies for construction of flats after carrying out some external development @ Rs. 750/- per square yard. The land so allotted formed part of Sectors 48 and 49, Chandigarh, whereas the land, which was acquired vide notification under consideration forms part of Sector 51. In addition to this, another document (Ex. P3) dated 16.9.1996, was placed on record, vide which the land was allotted by Chandigarh Administration to Chandigarh Housing Board forming part of Sector 61, pertaining to village Kajheri @ Rs. 850/- per square yard. Not only this, another letter