IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 2989 of 2006. Date of Decision : 18.5.2010. Union Territory, Chandigarh ......Appellant Versus Behal Singh Gill & another ......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Sr. Standing Counsel, Ms. Lisa Gill, Advocate, Ms. Alka Chattrath, Advocate. Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Sanjiv Ghai, Advocate, Mr. Vishal Sodhi, Advocate, Mr. Gurinder Jit Singh, Addl. Standing Counsel, Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate. Ms. Ekta Thakur, Advocate, Mr. P.C. Dhiman, Advocate, Mr. Hardip Singh, Advocate, Mr. Naresh Kaushal, Advocate, Mr. V.S. Rana, Advocate, Mr. R.K. Dhiman, Advocate, Mr. Avnish Jolly, Advocate. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This judgment would dispose of above mentioned 360 appeals because identical question of law and facts is involved. 2. RFAs No. 2345-51, 2410-16, 2443-53, 2473-76, 2576-78, 2590, 2643, 2647, 2884-89, 2891-96, 2950, 3171, 3284-86, 3290-91, 3372, 4485-86, 4594-4600, 4635-39, 4688 of 2001, 776, 839, 890, 1353-54, 1559-64, 2304-06, 2340, 2361, 2363, 2489, 2509, 2629-33, 2640, 2643, 2689, 3305, 4007 of 2002, 140-41, 1310, 1676, 1751-56, 2180, 2402-05, 2478, 2626, 4172, 4329 of 2003, 1224, 1280, 1567, 1604-11, 1648, 2054, 2355, 2533 of 2004, 587, 1188, 1289, 3296 of 2005, 1168-69, 1639-54, 1662-63, 1798-1800, 1933, 2269, 4165-66, 4168 of 2006, 956, 1306 and 2680 of 2009 have been filed by the land owners seeking enhancement of the compensation for the acquired land and the RFAs No. 5600-16, 5618-25 of 2001, 262-313, 405-07, 1586-88, 1639, 1660, 1699, RFA No. 2989 of 2006. (2) 1768, 2821-22, 3267-71 of 2002, 1111-12, 1184-1203, 2156-60, 2489, 2648-54 of 2003, 1262, 1613-22, 2464-77 of 2004, 334, 433, 511 of 2005, 2565-85, 2989-91, 3356-59, 3477 of 2006, 5605, 5607, 5609, 5611 of 2008 and 1555 of 2009 have been filed by the Union Territory, Chandigarh seeking reduction of the compensation awarded to the land owners. 3. Pursuant to notification dated July 8th, 1994 published under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act'), Chandigarh Administration acquired 8.77 acres of land in village Maloya for the development of 3rd phase of Sector 56, Chandigarh. 4. By notification dated March 9th, 1995, March 26th, 1997, July 1st, 1998 and August 29th, 1998, Chandigarh Administration acquired land of village Daddu Majra for houses to be constructed by the Chandigarh Housing Board, development of institutional area and for rehabilitation of Colony in Sector 38 West, Chandigarh respectively. 5. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short 'the Collector') by Award dated May 8th, 1995 assessed the market value of the land acquired in village Maloya at the rate of Rs.3 lacs per acre Dis-satisfied therewith, land owners sought references under Section 18 of the Act. By judgment/Award dated July 31st, 2000, the Additional District Judge/Court of Reference, Chandigarh determined the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.5,36,000/- per acre. By filing Regular First Appeals No. 2590 and 2950 of 2001, the land owners have impugned the Award passed by the Court of Reference. 6. The Collector vide following Awards assessed the market value of land of village Daddu Majra as under:- (i) vide Award No.500 dated December 11th, 1995 regarding the notification dated March 9th, 1995 assessed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.3 lacs per acre besides, the market price of the structures. (ii) vide Award No.516 dated December 19th, 1997, RFA No. 2989 of 2006. (3) Rs.4,53,900/- per acre was assessed as the market value in respect of land acquired vide notification dated March 26th, 1997. (iii) Vide Award No.525 dated March 30th, 1999 land acquired vide notification dated July 1st, 1998 was assessed at the rate of Rs.4,53,000/- per acre. (iv) Vide Award No.535 dated November 14th, 2000, Rs.4,53,900/- per acre was determined as the market value of the land acquired vide notification dated August 29th, 1998. 7. Aggrieved of the aforesaid Awards of the Collector, land owners sought references under Section 18 of the Act. (a) By Awards dated January 30th, 2001 and February 19, 2001, October 17th, 2001, November 27th, 2001, November 18th, 2003, April 3rd, 2004 and August 21st, 2004 passed by the Court of Reference with regard to the land acquired vide notification dated March 9th, 1995, the market value was determined at the rate of Rs.5,36,000/- per acre and 25% compensation was awarded over and above the price assessed by the Collector in respect of super structure. (b) By Award dated March 5th, 2002, the Court of Reference determined the market value of the land acquired vide notification dated March 26th, 1997 at the rate of Rs.6,64,640/- per acre. (c) The Court of Reference by Awards dated April 2nd, 2002, October 5th, 2002, November 13th, 2002, January 3rd, 2004, July 26th, 2004, October 29th, 2004, November 2nd, 2004, August 9th, 2005, November 8th, 2005, May 13th, 2007, February 20th, 2008, March 15th, 2008 determined the market value of the land acquired vide notification dated July 1st, 1998 at the rate of Rs.7,64,335/- per acre. (d) By Award dated February 27th, 2004 and August 9th, 2005, December 6th, 2005, the Court of Reference determined the market value of the land acquired vide notification dated August 29th, 1998 at the rate of Rs.7,87,265/- per acre. 8. The Collector vide Award No.503 dated May 8th, RFA No. 2989 of 2006. (4) 1996 assessed the market value of the tubewell, structure and trees. The land owners sought references under Section 18 of the Act but the same were dismissed by the Court of Reference by Award dated October 31st, 2001. 9. By filing these appeals aforesaid Awards have been challenged by the land owners as well as by the Union Territory, Chandigarh. 10. Learned counsel for the land owners have contended that vide notifications dated May 22nd, 1992 and July 8th, 1994 lands of adjoining villages Kajheri and Palsora were acquired by the Chandigarh Administration. This Court determined the market value of the land of village Kajheri at the rate of Rs.10,12,000/- per acre in Joginder Singh vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh (RFA No.696 of 1998). While determining the market price of the land of village Palsora, this Court in Ronki vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh (RFA No.1095 of 2000 decided on May 18 th , 2009) relying upon Joginder Singh's case (supra), determined the market price at the rate of Rs.12,54,880/- by giving increase of 12% per year on Rs.10,12,000/-. Accordingly, it has been urged that the market value of the acquired lands of village Maloya and Daddu Majra, which are admittedly, in the same vicinity as that of village Kajheri and Palsora, should also be assessed by adopting the formula which has been adopted in Ronki's case (supra), that is, by giving increase of 12% per year from the notification dated July 8th, 1994 upto the date of present notifications. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Union Territory have submitted that by notification dated April 6th, 1992, lands of village Daddu Majra and Dhanas were acquired by the Chandigarh Administration. The Court of Reference determined the market value at the rate of Rs.4,57,800/- per acre which was upheld by this Court in Surinder Singh vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh (RFA No.2323 of 2000 dated September 1 st , 2008). So, the market value of the acquired land should also be assessed as per the market value assessed in Surinder Singh's case (supra). 12. The villages, namely, Kajheri, Palsora, Maloya and RFA No. 2989 of 2006. (5) Daddu Majra are situated quite close to each other as per the site plan (Exhibit P-5) and the statement of Tara Chand, Patwari (AW-3). The lands were acquired for extension of Sector 38-C, Chandigarh, a fact which could not be refuted by learned counsel for the Union Territory, Chandigarh. The lands of these villages were also acquired way back in the year 1977 and 1978. The lands of a few other villages, that is, Nizampur Burail, Attawa, Burail were also acquired in the same years, that is, 1977 and 1978. A Division Bench of this Court in Jaswant Singh and others vs. Union of India through the Land Acquisition Officer, UT, Chandigarh (LPA No.1207 of 1981 decided on September 22 nd , 1982) (Exhibit PX) while determining the market value of the aforesaid seven villages, observed that since the land covered by separate acquisitions lies in close proximity of each other so, different rates of compensation should not be awarded. 13. In another judgment, Union of India vs. Harinder Pal Singh and others 2005(4) RCR (Civil) 638, land comprised in five villages was acquired. A Division Bench of this Court assessed the market value of the acquired land of all the villages at a uniform rate. Aggrieved of the judgment, Union of India filed Civi Appeal which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court concurring with the view taken by this Court. 14. Above being the legal and factual position, the market value of the acquired land of both the villages is to be assessed as was assessed with regard to the land of village Palsora in Ronki's case (supra) and not as per the judgment passed in Surinder Singh's case (supra). In Surinder Singh's case, it was observed that there was no site plan on record to show the exact location of the acquired land and also the land acquired was situated on Western end side of the city where there is a seasonal river flowing through the area and a portion of the acquired land was Gair Mumkin Nadi/Nala. Here, in the case in hand, no such evidence was led by the Chandigarh Administration. 15. Counsel for the land owners have urged that if the RFA No. 2989 of 2006. (6) amount is calculated by giving 12% increase cumulatively on the amount of Rs.10,12,000/- as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in The General Manager, Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel & another 2008 (4)RCR(Civil) 487, wherein, it has been ruled that the appropriate method is to calculate the increase cumulatively and not applying a flat rate. The amount of compensation with regard to acquisition of land of village Palsora comes to Rs.12,69,452/-. Thus, the market value of the land as on July 8th, 1994 (the date of notification whereby land of village Palsora was acquired) should be taken at the rate of Rs.12,69,452/- per acre and thereafter, 12% increase cumulatively should be given per year upto the date of present notifications. For convenience the figure is rounded off to Rs.12,69,500/-. 16. The date of notification of village Maloya is also July 8th, 1994 as that of village Palsora. However, there has been passage of 8 months, 2 years and 8 months, 4 years, 4 years and 1 month between the notification dated July 8th, 1994 and the notifications (mentioned in paragraph No. 4 of this judgment) whereby the land of village Daddu Majra was acquired. Obviously, the market value had increased during this period and as such, it would be appropriate to give an increase of 12% in price per year cumulatively. 17. So far as the market value assessed by the Court of Reference with regard to structure, tubewells, trees etc. is concerned, learned counsel for the appellants has not assailed the finding of the Court of Reference on that aspect. Thus, no interference is called for in that context. 18. In upshot for the reasons recorded supra, the land owners are held entitled to compensation as under:- (i) Land acquired for village Maloya by notification dated July 8th, 1994 at the rate of Rs.12,69,500 per acre. (ii)Land acquired for village Daddu Majra by notifications March 9th, 1995, March 26th, 1997, July 1st, 1998 and August 29th, 1998 at the rate of Rs.13,71,060/-, Rs.17,19,856/-, RFA No. 2989 of 2006. (7) Rs.19,97,581/- and Rs.20,37,532/- per acre respectively. 19. All the aforesaid figures have been calculated by this Court with the assistance of learned counsel for the appellants as well as counsel for the Union Territory, Chandigarh. 20. Besides this, the land owners will also be entitled to the statutory sum in accordance with Section 23(1A) of the Act and 30% more sum in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition as provided under Section 23(2) of the Act. They will also be entitled to interest as provided under Section 28 of the Act. Thus, the appeals file by the land owners are allowed in the manner indicated above and that of the Union Territory are dismissed. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 18.5.2010. SN