R.F.A. No. 3485 of 2002 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 3485 of 2002 (O&M) Date of decision: 5.10.2010 Hardial Singh and others .. Appellants v. Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. P. C. Dhiman, Advocate for the land owners. None for the respondent. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 3485 to 3488, 3801 of 2002 and R.F.A. Nos. 2167 to 2171 of 2003, as common questions of law and facts are involved. In the appeals, filed by the land owners, they are seeking further enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned court below for the acquired land, whereas in the appeals filed by Union Territory, Chandigarh, the prayer is for reduction thereof. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 3485 of 2002. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 15.7.1997, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), the land, situated in village Mani Majra, U.T., Chandigarh was acquired for construction of 420 K.V. Sub Station in Mani Majra. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector'), vide award dated 19.12.1997, assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 5,56,320/- 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 value of the acquired land @ ` 8,03,440/- per acre. It is this award which is impugned by both the parties in the present set of appeals. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the acquired land is located just on the other side of Chandigarh-Kalka Railway track and opposite to R.F.A. No. 3485 of 2002 [2] pockets No. 9 and 11, Mani Majra. Modern Housing Complex is located just 1-1/2 kilometers therefrom. The entire area in the vicinity had already been developed or was in the process of development at a very fast pace. Beyond that, Chandigarh IT City was developed. Prior to the acquisition in the present case, the land was acquired by Union Territory, Chandigarh vide notification dated 9.8.1990 for development of residential-cum-commercial Complex Scheme No. 3. The land pertaining thereto was just adjoining the acquired land. This Court in R.F.A. No. 2016 of 2001 –Sadhu Ram and others v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, decided on 5.10.2010, while relying upon the judgment of this court in LPA No. 241 of 2004 –Amarjit Singh and others v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, decided on 17.9.2008 assessed the value therefor @ ` 167/- per square yard. The submission is that notification in the present case having been issued on 15.7.1997, the land owners should be awarded increase @ 12% per annum thereon for the time gap in the two acquisitions. No one has appeared for Union Territory, Chandigarh. Heard learned counsel for the land owners and perused the relevant referred record. A perusal of the site plan shows that the land, which was subject- matter of appeal in Sadhu Ram's case (supra), acquired vide notification dated 9.8.1990, is located on one side of the Railway Line in Scheme No. 3, whereas the land acquired in the present case is located on the other side of the Railway Line, where later on IT park was developed. This Court in Sadhu Ram's case (supra) had assessed the value thereof @ ` 167/- per square yard. Learned counsel for the land owners are claiming that they be granted increase @ 12% per annum thereon for the time gap in the two notifications, which is about seven years. This court finds the prayer made by the land owners to be justifiable. The awards announced by the Collector pertaining to the aforesaid two acquisitions also show appreciation of prices in the area, which is even at a rate more than 12% per annum. As is evident from Sadhu Ram's case (supra), the award of the Collector therein was ` 2,75,000/- per acre, whereas in the present case, it was ` 5,56,320/- per acre. Accordingly, after awarding increase @ 12% per annum on ` 167/- per square yard, the value of the acquired land would come out to ` 307.28 per square yard, which is rounded off to ` 307/- per square yard. The land owners shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits available to them under the Act. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6515 of 2009 – Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation v. Pran Sukh and others, decided on 17.8.2010, to ensure that the landowners are not fleeced by the R.F.A. No. 3485 of 2002 [3] middleman in the process of disbursement of enhanced compensation, issued certain directions. I deem it appropriate to issue same directions in the present set of appeals as well. The same are as under: “With a view to ensure that the land owners are not fleeced by the middleman, we deem it appropriate to issue following further directions: (i) The Land Acquisition Collector shall depute officers subordinate to him not below the rank of Naib Tehsildar, who shall get in touch with all the land owners and/or their legal representatives and inform them about their entitlement and right to receive enhanced compensation. (ii) The concerned officers shall also instruct the land owners and/or their legal representatives to open savings bank account in case they already do not have such account. (iii) The bank account numbers of the land owners should be given to the Land Acquisition Collector within three months. (iv) The Land Acquisition Collector shall deposit the cheques of compensation in the bank accounts of the land owners.” The appeals are disposed of to the extent mentioned above. ( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge 5.10.2010 mk