R.F.A. No. 1159 of 1998 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: February 18 , 2009 (1) R.F.A. No. 1159 of 1998 Kartar Singh .. Appellant v. Union of India and others .. Respondents (2) R.F.A. No. 1279 of 1998 (O&M) Kewal Singh and another ....Appellants Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents (3) R.F.A. No. 1356 of 1998 (O&M) Bhupinder Singh ....Appellant Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents (4) R.F.A. No. 1357 of 1998 (O&M) Mohinder Singh ....Appellants Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents (5) R.F.A. No. 1358 of 1998 (O&M) Gian Kaur and another ....Appellants Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents R.F.A. No. 1159 of 1998 [2] (6) R.F.A. No. 1533 of 1998 (O&M) Ajit Singh and another ....Appellants Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents (7) R.F.A. No. 1588 of 1998 (O&M) Gurmukh Singh and others ....Appellants Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents (8) R.F.A. No. 1646 of 1998 (O&M) Amrik Singh and others ....Appellants Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents (9) R.F.A. No. 1737 of 1998 (O&M) Tara Singh and others ....Appellants Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents (10) R.F.A. No. 1911 of 1998 (O&M) Union of India ....Appellant Versus Sandal Singh and others ...Respondents R.F.A. No. 1159 of 1998 [3] (11) R.F.A. No. 1912 of 1998 (O&M) Union of India ....Appellant Versus Mohan Singh (deceased) through LRs and others ...Respondents (12) R.F.A. No. 1913 of 1998 (O&M) Union of India ....Appellant Versus Sukhwinder Singh (deceased) through LRs and others ...Respondents (13) R.F.A. No. 1914 of 1998 (O&M) Union of India ....Appellant Versus Sadhu Singh and others ...Respondents (14) R.F.A. No. 1915 of 1998 (O&M) Union of India ....Appellant Versus Tarlok Singh and others ...Respondents (15) R.F.A. No. 1916 of 1998 (O&M) Union of India ....Appellant Versus Kartar Singh and others ...Respondents R.F.A. No. 1159 of 1998 [4] (16) R.F.A. No. 1917 of 1998 (O&M) Union of India ....Appellant Versus Avtar Singh and others ...Respondents (17) R.F.A. No. 2068 of 1998 (O&M) Balwant Singh and others ....Appellants Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents (18) R.F.A. No. 2684 of 1998 (O&M) Jarnail Singh and others ....Appellants Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents (19) R.F.A. No. 3039 of 1998 (O&M) Jai Singh and another ....Appellants Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents (20) R.F.A. No. 3040 of 1998 (O&M) Tarsem Singh ....Appellant Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents R.F.A. No. 1159 of 1998 [5] (21) R.F.A. No. 3041 of 1998 (O&M) Darshan Singh (deceased) through LRs ....Appellant Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents (22) R.F.A. No. 3042 of 1998 (O&M) Avtar Singh and another ....Appellant Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents (23) R.F.A. No. 3641 of 1998 (O&M) Channo and others ....Appellants Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents (24) R.F.A. No. 4102 of 1998 (O&M) Kabul Singh Sarai and others ....Appellants Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents (25) R.F.A. No. 4274 of 1998 (O&M) Surinder Singh and others ....Appellants Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents R.F.A. No. 1159 of 1998 [6] CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: S/ Shri Sarwan Singh, Senior Advocate with N.S. Rapri, G. S. Nagra, G. K. Chawla and R. K. S. Brar, Advocates for the land owners. Mr. C. M. Sharma, Advocate for Union of India. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of a bunch of 25 appeals, as common questions of law and facts are involved. R.F.A. Nos. 1159, 1279, 1356 to 1358, 1533, 1588, 1646, 1737, 2068, 2684, 3039 to 3042, 3641, 4102 and 4274 of 1998 have been filed by the land owners seeking further enhancement of compensation. R.F.A. Nos. 1911 to 1917 of 1998 have been filed by Union of India seeking reduction of compensation on account of acquisition of land. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 1159 of 1998. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Union of India vide notification dated 6.6.1989, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), acquired 1086 kanals and 12 marlas of land situated in village Sarai khas; 85 kanals and 6 marlas situated in village Kahlwan and vide notification dated 12.6.1990 acquired 8 kanals and 9 marlas of land in village Sarai Khas for the purpose of setting up Central Reserve Police Force Centre. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 70,000/- per acre in respect of chahi land and Rs. 35,000/- per acre for other classes of land. 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 entire acquired land at Rs. 85,000/- per acre. Learned counsels for the land owners submitted that for the land acquired in the vicinity vide notification dated 25.3.1988 for use by ITBP, the learned Reference Court had determined the compensation payable to the land owners therein at Rs. 1,60,000/- per acre for the land located on G.T. Road upto a depth of 100 karams and for the land behind that, the same was assessed at Rs. 1,10,000/- per acre. It has been further submitted that while assessing the compensation for acquisition of land for ITBP Complex, the learned Reference Court had relied upon the award pertaining to the acquisition of land for Government Engineering College. This Court in R.F.A. No. 1859 of 1990-- Gurbax Singh (through LRs) v. State of Punjab and others, decided on 13.10.2006, had directed for treating the entire chunk of land as one block as against the belting R.F.A. No. 1159 of 1998 [7] system adopted by the learned court below. As the land in question is located adjoining to the land which was acquired for ITBP Complex, the land owners herein should not be paid compensation less than what was determined payable to them. They further submitted that acquisition in the present case being more than one year subsequent thereto, some increase for the intervening period should also be granted. On the other hand, learned counsel for Union of India submitted that the award pertaining to the acquisition of land for ITBP Complex was not produced by the land owners before the learned court below and whatever has been determined by the court below is in terms of the evidence produced by the land owners on record and the same does not deserve to be interfered with. However, the fact that this Court had assessed the entire chunk of land acquired for ITBP Complex at the same rate while setting aside the belting system adopted by the learned Reference Court is not denied. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the land owners. The fact that the acquired land in the present case is located adjoining to the land acquired for ITBP Complex on G.T. Road is not disputed. Once that is so, in my opinion, the judgment of this court dealing with the issue of valuation of land acquired for setting up of ITBP Complex on the land, which is adjoining the land in question can very well be relied upon for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land, as the acquisition in the present case is more than one year later in time. The potential of both the lands is similar. This Court, vide separate order passed today in R.F.A. No. 1816 of 1995-- Mohan Singh (deceased) through LRs v. Union of India and others, while dealing with the assessment of value of acquired land for ITBP Complex had determined the same at a flat rate of Rs. 1,60,000/- per acre following the judgment in Gurbax Singh's case (supra). The land in question being situated just adjoining the ITBP Complex, I do not find any reason not to rely upon the judgment of this Court determining the value of the land acquired for ITBP Complex. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the land owners in the present set of appeals are also held entitled to compensation @ Rs. 1,60,000/- per acre by setting aside the belting system provided by the learned court below. The land owners shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available under the Act. As far as grant of further increase for the time gap in the notifications is concerned, I do not find any reason to award the same to the land owners herein, as there is no evidence to show any increase in the prices during the intervening R.F.A. No. 1159 of 1998 [8] period. In view of the above, the appeals filed by the land owners are allowed, whereas those filed by the Union of India are dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge February 18 ,2009 mk