R.F.A. No. 579 of 2006 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 1.10.2008 1. R.F.A.No.579 of 2006 Smt. Akko Devi and others .........Appellants versus Union Territory, Chandigarh and another .........Respondents 2. R.F.A.No.1968 of 2005 Sher Singh and another ........Appellants versus Union Territory and another .........Respondents 3. R.F.A.No.1969 of 2005 Rajinder Singh ........Appellant versus Union Territory and another .........Respondents 4. R.F.A.No.1970 of 2005 Man Singh and another ........Appellants versus Union Territory and another ........Respondents 5. R.F.A.No.1971 of 2005 Raj Kumar and another .......Appellants versus Union Territory and another ........Respondents 6. R.F.A.No.1972 of 2005 Nachhattar Singh .........Appellant versus Union Territory and another ........Respondents 7. R.F.A.No.1973 of 2005 Joginder Singh .........Appellant versus Union Territory and another .........Respondents R.F.A. No. 579 of 2006 [ 2] 8. R.F.A.No.1974 of 2005 Jot Ram .........Appellant versus Union Territory and another .........Respondents 9. R.F.A.No.1975 of 2005 Sanjeev Kumar and another ........Appellants versus Union Territory and another .........Respondents 10. R.F.A.No.1976 of 2005 Jagga Ram and another ............Appellants versus Union Territory and another ...........Respondents 11. R.F.A.No.1977 of 2005 Rai Singh and another ..........Appellants versus Union Territory and another ...........Respondents 12. R.F.A.No.1978 of 2005 Krishna Devi ...........Appellant versus Union Territory and another ..........Respondents 13. R.F.A.No.1979 of 2005 Gule Khan .........Appellant versus Union Territory and another ..........Respondents 14. R.F.A.No.1980 of 2005 Dheera Singh ...........Appellant versus Union Territory and another ..........Respondetns R.F.A. No. 579 of 2006 [ 3] 15. R.F.A.No.1981 of 2005 Mukhtiar Ali ...........Appellant versus Union Territory and another ...........Respondents 16. R.F.A.No.2290 of 2005 Bhag Singh ............Appellant versus Union Territory and another ...........Respondents 17. R.F.A.No.2291 of 2005 Raghbir Singh ............Appellant versus Union Territory and another ............Respondents 18. R.F.A.No.2292 of 2005 Gurdev Singh ...........Appellant versus Union Territory and another ...........Respondents 19. R.F.A.No.2293 of 2005 Jagtar Singh ...........Appellant versus Union Territory and another ...........Respondents 20. R.F.A.No.2294 of 2005 Dilbag Singh ...........Appellant versus Union Territory and another ...........Respondents 21. R.F.A.No.577 of 2006 Pal Singh ............Appellant versus Union Territory and another .............Respondents 22. R.F.A.No.578 of 2006 Gian Singh ............Appellant versus Union Territory and another ............Respondents R.F.A. No. 579 of 2006 [ 4] 23. R.F.A.No.649 of 2006 Ranjit Singh ............Appellant versus Union Territory and another ............Respondents 24. R.F.A.No.650 of 2006 Ujaggar Singh ............Appellant versus Union Territory and another ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Vikas Bahl, Mr. Amit Arora and Ms. Tanisha Peshawaria, Advocates for the appellants. Mr. Gurinderjit Singh, Additional Standing Counsel, Ms. Lisa Gill and Mr. Deepak Sharma, Standing Counsel for Union Territory, Chandigarh Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of the above mentioned 24 appeals, as the same arise out of a common acquisition. However, the facts have been taken from R.F.A. No.579 of 2006. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 3.7.1997, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), Chandigarh Administration acquired land in Villages Nizampur, Burail and Jhumru. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 5,91,200/- per acre. He did not award any compensation in respect of super structures erected on the acquired land. Aggrieved against the award of super structures, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, upheld the award of the Collector. Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon judgments of this Court in R.F.A. No. 894 of 1976—Hans Raj and others v. Chandigarh Administration, decided on 8.4.1980; R.F.A. No. 2608 of 1980—Dharam Vir and others v. Union of India, decided on 18.8.1981; R.F.A. No. 2560 of 1987-- Hazura Singh v. Union of India, decided on 25.2.2004; R.F.A. No. 2340 of 1998 – Suraj R.F.A. No. 579 of 2006 [ 5] Bhan and others v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, decided on 24.9.2008; Jai Kaur v. State of Punjab and another, 1992 LACC 501 and Union of India v. Pal Singh and another, (1994-3) PLR 569 to submit that the claim of the land owners on account of compensation for super structure was wrongly rejected by the learned Court below. The Collector had even exceeded its brief by opining on the nature of construction by holding the same to be unauthorised, whereas no material was placed before him to record such a finding as neither he was the competent authority therefor nor any notice was issued to the land owners for the purpose. The submission is that the land owners are entitled to compensation on account of acquisition of super structure at the rate claimed in the valuation report submitted by them. On the other hand, learned counsel for Union Territory relying upon State of Orissa v. Rajakishore Das, (1996) 4 SCC 221, submitted that the appellants in the present case have rightly been denied compensation on account of acquisition of super structure as they were only entitled to the scrap value keeping in view the fact that the structures made by them were unauthorised. The issue regarding the entitlement of compensation on account of structure in Chandigarh and especially pertaining to Villages Nizampur, Burail and Jhumru has already been gone into by this Court in R.F.A. No. 663 of 2004 – Union Territory, Chandigarh v. Sajjan Singh, decided on 2.8.2006 and in Suraj Bhan's case (supra) pertaining to Village Burail, wherein it has been opined that the Collector being not the competent authority to go into all these issues in terms of the jurisdiction vested in him under the provisions of the Act and there being no material on record to enable him to record such a finding, the land owners could not be denied the payment of compensation on account of acquisition of super structure. Accordingly, for the reasons recorded in Sajjan Singh's case (supra) and Suraj Bhan's case (supra), it is held that denial of compensation to the land owners on account of acquisition of super structure is not in conformity with law. As per the estimates and site plans produced on record by the land owners, the super structures in the present case are in the form of rooms and cattle sheds which are subservient to agriculture. Accordingly, the findings recorded by the learned Court below on this issue is set aside and it is held that the land owners will be entitled to compensation on account of acquisition of super structure. As far as the valuation of the super structure is concerned, in the aforesaid judgments, it has been opined that the land owners shall be entitled to compensation on the value assessed at PWD rates with 25% increase thereon. Therefore, in the present set of appeals also, the land owners shall be entitled to R.F.A. No. 579 of 2006 [ 6] compensation for acquisition of super structures at the rate determined by P.W.D. plus 25% increase thereon. The value of the super structure as determined at PWD rate is on record. The appellants shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits available to them under the Act. The appeals are allowed with costs in the above terms. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 1.10.2008 mk