IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.169 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 04.08.2011 Sukhdev Raj and others …..Appellants versus Ambala Improvement Trust, Ambala ……Respondent CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih Present: Mr.Deepak Sharma, Advocate for the appellants Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) CM No.477 of 2011 In view of reasons mentioned in this application, which is accompanied by an affidavit, it is allowed and 46 days delay in re-filing the appeal stands condoned. LPA No.169 of 2011(O&M) This appeal has been filed against judgment passed by the learned Single Judge on 19.12.2008, vide which CWP No.6181 of 1989 was partly allowed, granting compensation for the land owned by the petitioner @ Rs.38/- per square yard for Block A, @ Rs.34/- per square yard for Block B, @ Rs.28.50/- per square yard for Block C along with other statutory benefits. It is stated by counsel for the appellants that the process to acquire the land was started in the month of October 1974, an award was LPA No.169 of 2011(O&M) passed on 18.4.1978 and the Collector awarded compensation @ Rs.3.41, Rs.3.31 and Rs.3.20 per square yard for Blocks A, B and C respectively along with other statutory benefits. The appellants are the owners of 13 kanal 4 marla of land situated in village Jhandli, tehsil and district Ambala. The matter went to the Tribunal and compensation was enhanced @ Rs.15, Rs.12 and Rs.10 per square yards for Blocks A, B and C respectively. The appellants thereafter filed the above said writ petition, which was partly allowed by enhancing the amount of compensation, as mentioned in earlier part of the order. Counsel for the appellants, by making reference to a fact that for the adjoining land acquired by the Housing Board, compensation was awarded @ Rs.70 per square yard for leveled land and Rs.50/- per square yard for low lying area, prayed that the same amount of compensation be awarded for the land in question. To get higher amount of compensation reliance was also placed upon the case of PKR Jain Girls High School Ambala City, whose land was acquired in the year 1965. Those instances were noted by the learned Single Judge and it was observed as under:- “It may be true for the land of Housing Board/ Urban Estate acquired on 30th January, 1973 (Ex.P8), the compensation @ Rs.70/- per square yard for leveled land and Rs.50/- per square yard for the low lying land was awarded. However, that land had better potentiality as compared to the acquired land. Similarly, compensation @ Rs.30/- per square yard awarded by this Court for the land of P.K.R. Jain Girls High School, Ambala City could not have been awarded for the acquired land, had it been also acquired in the year 1965. In my considered view, taking into consideration all the 2 LPA No.169 of 2011(O&M) advantages and disadvantages, the acquired land could fetch maximum rate of Rs.15 to 20/- per square yard in the year 1965. Applying the principle of progressive rise in price @ 10@ per annum, the fair and just market value of the acquired land (the best part) in the year 1974, could be Rs.20x10% per annum x 9+Rs.38/- (Rs.20+18) per square yard. Adverting to the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that the acquired land ought not to have been divided into three blocks. I am of the considered view that the principle of belting is a well known/ recognized method to determine the just and adequate compensation lest unjust award would ensue. When it is proved that the acquired land is comprising leveled as well as low lying area, it would be unjust and unfair to treat both the pieces of land equally for determining the market value. In a case where the acquired land is a big chunk of land and the evidence on record does suggest variation of advantages and disadvantages of different pieces of such acquired land, the Court would be justified in adopting the belting system. Following these principles and having regard to the evidence on record and the finding of fat returned by the Tribunal that a part of the acquired land towards the railway line is a low lying area which was being used by the Municipality to dump its garbage, I am of the considered view that the division of the acquired land by the Tribunal into three blocks A, B and C is fully justified and no interference in the said finding of fact is called for. 3 LPA No.169 of 2011(O&M) For the reason afore stated, these writ petitions are allowed in part. While the land owners whose lands fall in Block A are held entitled to compensation @ Rs.38/- per square yard, those whose land falls in Block B are held entitled to compensation @ Rs.34/- whereas, those land owners whose lands fall in block C are held entitled to compensation @ Rs.28.50 per square yard. The petitioners shall also be entitled to solatium @ 30% besides interest @ 9% from the date of award till one year and @ 15% per annum till actual payment thereof. Parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.” We feel that the order passed is perfectly justified. The learned Single Judge has looked into the comparative situation of the land in dispute and also the land regarding which reference has been made. It was found as a matter of fact that the land acquired by the Housing Board had better potentiality as compared to the land under acquisition in this case. Besides as above, appeal is barred by 425 days. No plausible explanation has given to condone the delay. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 04.08.2011 (Augustine George Masih) gk Judge 4