Letters Patent Appeal No.241 of 2004 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Letters Patent Appeal No.241 of 2004 Date of decision: 17.09.2008 Amarjit Singh & others .... Appellants Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh .... Respondent Present:- Mr.Neeraj Sharma, Advocate, for the appellants. Mrs.Lisa Gill and Mr.Deepak Sharma, Advocates, for the respondents. 2. Letters Patent Appeal No.54 of 2006 Karam Singh .... Appellant Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh .... Respondent Present: Mr.Tanisha Peshawaria, Advocate, for the appellant. Mrs.Lisa Gill and Mr.Deepak Sharma, Advocates, for the respondent. 3. Letters Patent Appeal No.55 of 2006 Harbhajan Singh .... Appellant Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh .... Respondent Present: Mr.Tanisha Peshawaria, Advocate, for the appellant. Mrs.Lisa Gill and Mr.Deepak Sharma, Advocates, for the respondent. Letters Patent Appeal No.241 of 2004 [2] 4. Letters Patent Appeal No.56 of 2006 Sadhu Singh .... Appellant Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh .... Respondent Present: Mr.Tanisha Peshawaria, Advocate, for the appellant. Mrs.Lisa Gill and Mr.Deepak Sharma, Advocates, for the respondent. CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? -.- HEMANT GUPTA, J This order shall dispose of Letters Patent Appeal Nos.241 of 2004, 54 of 2006, 55 of 2006 and 56 of 2006, arising out of judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court on 29.07.1999 whereby a sum of Rs.79/- per square yard was awarded as compensation of land owned by the appellants. The Land Acquisition Collector has awarded Rs.85,000/- per acre in respect of land acquired vide notification dated 10.12.1986 whereby 61.64 acres of land was acquired for residential purposes. The same was enhanced by learned District Judge vide award dated 24.07.1990 to Rs.2 lacs per acre. However, in terms of the judgment of learned Single Judge, the total compensation payable to the land comes to Rs.3,82,364/- per acre i.e. Rs.79/- per square yard. The learned Single Judge has recorded a finding that the land Letters Patent Appeal No.241 of 2004 [3] acquired is across the road of the land which since has been acquired vide notification dated 03.02.1978. Such land was subject matter of judgment Ex.P4 in respect of land acquired for extension of school. The said judgment was found to be of comparable instance and could be relied upon by the Court. The land which is subject matter of Ex.P4 was acquired vide notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 03.02.1978 wherein 1.01 acres of land was acquired for school. The compensation awarded was Rs.116/- per square yard. The learned Single Judge deducted the amount of compensation against the element of increase and determined Rs.79 per square yard as the compensation of the land measuring 61.64 acres. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the land which was subject matter of the acquisition in Ex.P4 was in pursuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 03.02.1978 whereas the land in dispute has been acquired more than 8 years later vide notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 10.12.1986. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has wrongly deducted for the compensation determined in the earlier acquisition. In fact, the appellants are entitled to increase in the price determined in pursuance of Annexure P-4 on account of long period of time. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon an order dated 23.12.2006 passed in LPA No. 500 of 2001 titled Jasbir Kaur and another vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh, whereby a compensation of Rs.87/- per square yard was assessed in respect of land measuring 39.72 acres acquired vide notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 25.05.1989. It is thus contended that appellants are not entitled any enhancement as the compensation in respect of land acquired in the year Letters Patent Appeal No.241 of 2004 [4] 1989 was found to be Rs.87/- per square yard and the land subject matter of the present appeal, has been rightly assessed at Rs.79/- per square yard. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length. In judgment dated 23.12.2006 in Jasbir Kaur's case, the Division Bench of this Court has relied upon two earlier judgments i.e. Ex. A21 and Ex. PX. Ex. A21 is a judgment in L.P.A.No.347 of 1993 arising out of acquisition of land measuring 1.69 acre vide notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 18.02.1980. The compensation awarded comes to Rs.4,18,080/- per acre. Ex.PX is the judgment arising out of the present acquisition rendered by the learned Additional District Judge wherein Rs.2 lacs was awarded as compensation. The Division Bench in the aforesaid appeal arrived at average of the two market values i.e. Rs.4,18,080/- and Rs.2 lacs and returned a finding that the market value is Rs.3,09,040/-. It is the said value which was ultimately determined as the market value of the land measuring 39.72 acres. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the basis of the judgment in Jasbir Kaur's case is correct. Ex. PX is not the judgment of this Court but of the learned Additional District Judge and, therefore, the method of average adopted by the Division Bench of this Court is based upon factual mistake. As per the judgments made available, the first notification in respect of comparable land under Section 4 of the Act is dated 03.02.1978, in respect of the land measuring 1.01 acre, the compensation awarded is Rs.116/- per square yard. The second notification dated 18.02.1980 under Section 4 of the Act is in respect of land measuring 1.69 acre awarding compensation of Rs.116/- per square yard. Thereafter, the subject matter of Letters Patent Appeal No.241 of 2004 [5] the present appeals i.e. notification dated 10.12.1986 under Section 4 of the Act in respect of land measuring 61.64 acres awarding Rs.79/- per square yard. Still later notification dated 25.05.1989 in respect of land measuring 39.72 acres. The compensation awarded is Rs.87/- per square yard, vide judgment dated 23.12.2006 in L.P.A.No.500 of 2001. In respect of notification dated 3.2.1978 and 18.02.1990, the compensation awarded is Rs.116/- per square yard. The land acquired vide aforesaid notification is in the near vicinity of subject matter of present acquisition. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that the subject matter of acquisition vide the aforesaid notification was a small area of land which cannot be made basis for determining the compensation of large tract of land i.e., over 60 acres. But we do not find any merit in the said argument. The land acquired vide notification dated 03.02.1978 was 1.01 acre whereas it was 1.69 acres in notification dated 18.02.1980. Such land cannot be said to be a small area. The deduction on account of small area is made so as to allow the provision of common facilities i.e., roads and parks etc whereas acquisition of approximately one acre is not such which cannot be said to be small area. Still further, the acquisition was more than 6 to 8 years earlier than the acquisition in the present case. Even if the land owners are not entitled to any enhancement on the amount of compensation determined in the aforesaid acquisition but even any deduction on such amount of compensation would be wholly unjustified. Once the land is of comparable location, the land owners are at least entitled to the said amount of compensation as was awarded 6 to 8 years earlier. In view of the above, we allow the present appeals and award a Letters Patent Appeal No.241 of 2004 [6] sum of Rs.116/- per square yard for the land acquired vide notification dated 10.12.1986. The land owners shall be entitled to other statutory benefits of interest and solatium in terms of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly. (Hemant Gupta) Judge September 17, 2008 (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) mamta-II / ks Judge