R.F.A. No. 2400 of 2000 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 2400 of 2000 (O&M) Date of decision: 9.12.2010 Bakhtawar Singh and others .. Appellants v. Union Territory, Chandigarh and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. P. C. Dhiman, Ms. Ekta Thakur, Mr. Bhim Singh for Mr. D. S. Raghu, Advocates for the land owners. Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate for Union Territory, Chandigarh. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 1308 of 1996, 2321, 2399, 2400, 2693 to 2697 of 2000, 2795 and 2796 of 2001, as common questions of law and facts are involved. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 2400 of 2000. The land owners are in appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 11.3.1987, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), Chandigarh Administration acquired 11 kanals and 15 marlas of land in villages Jhumroo and Burail, Union Territory, Chandigarh for construction of link road between Sectors 49 and 50 of Chandigarh and Sectors 63 and 64 of SAS Nagar Mohali. The same was followed by notification dated 25.6.1987, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 85,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market R.F.A. No. 2400 of 2000 [2] value of the acquired land @ ` 2,66,750/- pertaining to land of village Jhumroo and ` 1,76,000/- per acre for the land in village Burail. It is this award of the learned court below, which is impugned before this court. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the learned court below, while referring to the judgment of this Court in Union of India v. Harchal Singh, 2000(2) RCR (Civil) 261, pertaining to acquisition of land vide notification dated 29.7.1988 and considering the fact that the amount of compensation awarded therein was ` 3,95,000/- per acre, pertaining to the land of village Nizampur Kumbra acquired for the purpose of development of third phase of Chandigarh, had assessed the value of the acquired land @ ` 2,66,750/- per acre. It was submitted that the aforesaid judgment in Harchal Singh's case (supra) was set aside in appeal and the matter was remanded back. Thereafter, vide judgment dated 29.11.2006, this court had assessed the value of the acquired land vide notification dated 29.7.1988 at ` 7,50,000/- per acre. The land in question is located in the close vicinity, as it was acquired for the purpose of construction of link road between Sectors 49 and 50 of Chandigrh and Sectors 63 and 64 of SAS Nagar Mohali. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued in the present case on 11.3.1987. There being a gap of 16 months in between, the amount of compensation should be awarded to the land owners after applying appropriate cut, which should not be more than 10% per annum. He further submitted that subsequent thereto, even in R.F.A. No. 1339 of 1996 –Bhopal Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, decided on 29.11.2006, where the land of village Nizampur Burail was acquired for development of third phase of Chandigarh vide notification dated 8.7.1988, the same amount of compensation was awarded by this court. Still further, the submission was that in R.F.A. No. 2511 of 1997—Bhajan Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, decided on 29.11.2006, where the land of village Kajehri was acquired for development of third phase of Chandigarh vide notification dated 8.7.1988, the same amount of compensation awarded by this court. Learned counsel for Union Territory could not dispute the fact that the amount of compensation in Harchal Singh's case (supra) was subsequently enhanced by this court to ` 7,50,000/- per acre and also the fact that the area where the land in question was acquired and the area dealt with in Harchal Singh's case (supra) and Bhopal Singh's case (supra) is located in the vicinity. However, she submitted that cut for the time gap should not be less than 12% per annum. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, in my opinion, the judgment of this court in Harchal Singh's case (supra) can very well be relied upon R.F.A. No. 2400 of 2000 [3] for the purpose of assessment of compensation in the present set of appeals. The area where the land in question is situated and which was dealt with in Harchal Singh's case (supra) is located in the vicinity, as this is forming part of third phase of Chandigarh. There is a time gap of 16 months in the two notifications. For the acquisition carried out vide notification dated 29.7.1988, this court had assessed the value @ ` 7,50,000/- per acre. Notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case was issued on 11.3.1987, for which if a cut of 12% per annum is applied, the value of the land would come out to ` 6,50,000/- per acre. The land owners are held entitled to aforesaid amount of compensation. They shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits available to them under the Act. The compensation shall be paid to the land owners subject to furnishing of court fee, if the same is deficient. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. ( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge 9.12.2010 mk