IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CM 263 OF 2004 IN LPA NUMBER 135 OF 2000 Ranbir Singh & others ....Applicants-appellants versus Union of India & others ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHTAB S GILL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K KANNAN Present: Shri S.K.Singla, Advocate, for the applicants-appellants Ms.Lisa Gill, Advocate, for Union of India-respodnents K KANNAN, J 1.The applicant-Mohar Singh seeks for impleadment as party appellant No.4 on the ground that sole appellant Ranjit Singh died on 18-11-1997 but on his death the present appellants had filed CM 331 of 2000 without disclosing the names of all the legal heirs but referring to a will as alleged to have been executed by Ranjit Singh. The applicant contends that the will has been disputed and there is a civil suit pending regarding the validity of the will. 2,Admittedly, the present appellants have been impleaded as per the orders of the Court based on the will propounded by them. Persons who claim to be legal representatives need not all be legal heirs and they would only represent the estate of the deceased person. Since there is already a civil suit pending which would decide one way or the other about the genuineness of the will, we do not think it necessary to consider whether representation of the appellants alone are sufficient. This appeal will adjudicate upon the benefits of the legal heirs of the deceased Ranjit Singh. The distribuition of the amount determined as award shall necessarily follow the final adjudication rendered in the civil suit relating to the genuineness of the will. CM 263 of 2004 is, therefore, dismissed with liberty to applicants to abide by the adjudication of the Civil Courts as regards the distribution of the amount adjudicated in these proceedings. {Mehtab S Gill} {K Kannan} Judge Judge 27-11-2008 IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH LPA NUMBER 135 OF 2000 DECIDED ON :27-11-2008 Ranbir Singh and others ....Appellants versus Union of India and others ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHTAB S GILL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K KANNAN Present: Shri S.K.Singla, Advocate, for the appellants Mrs.Lisa Gill, Advocate, for Union of India-respondents K KANNAN, J 1.The appellants have challenged the adequacy of the award as found by the decision of the Single Judge determining Rs.79/-per square yard for the land acquired from the deceased Ranjit Singh. While disposing of the appeal, the Single Judge referred to an alleged comparable land across the road which had been acquired on 03-02-1978. Acquisition was in respect of 1.01 acre and the compensation had been arrived at Rs.116/-. The Single Judge felt that for an extent of over 63 acres, reduction must be made and stated that in relation to the property which was acquired vide notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 10-12-1986, the amount was liable to be reduced to Rs.79/-per square yard. In appeal by the appellants, the decision of the Single Judge is assailed on the ground that the extent of property of land which was compared, was not 1.01 acre but it was 1.69 acres. The reasoning, according to the appellants , for reducing the amount was not again correct since the amount of Rs.116/-per square yard had been taken for acquisition made under notification dated 03-02-1978 while the subject of acquisition relating to notification period that was spelled out was 10-12-1986. Consequently, there ought to have been an increase in the price of the property and the reduction which was made by the Single Judge was not appropriate. The appellants also relied upon a judgement of this Court rendered recently in relation to some other property covered under the same notification in Amarjit Singh and others versus U.T., Chandigarh LPA 241 of 2004. The Division Bench of this Court while considering the matter in the above case has referred to so- called comparable land that was acquired for a school on 03-02-1978 but the Bench LPA 135 of 2000 --2-- observed that the extent was not 1.01 acre as noticed by the Single Judge but it was 1.69 acres. The Division Bench also considered the decision of yet another Bench in LPA 500 of 2001 titled as “Jasbir Kaur and another versus U.T.Chandigarh” whereby compensation of Rs.85/-per square yard was assessed in respect of the land measuring 39.72 acres vide notification dated 25-05-1989. The Division Bench reasoned that it was not possible to follow the compensation as awarded in the said case in view of the peculiar circumstances that the case dealt with, placing its reliance on the decision of the Additional Sessions Judge and, therefore, the method of average adopted by the Division Bench in the said case was based upon a factual mistake. The Court found on consideration of all relevant factors that a sum of Rs.116/-per square yard for the land acquired would be appropriate, besides the other statutory benefits like interest , solatium in terms of the Land Acquisition Act. 2.It is not in dispute that the decision rendered by a Division bench in LPA 241 of 2004 titled as “Amarjit Singh and others versus U.T., Chandigarh ” was with reference to the very same notification as the lands which were covered in the present subject matter of appeal. We are in full agreement with the reasoning adopted by the Division bench in the above decision. The vehement objection of the counsel for U.T., Chandigarh, opposing the plea for enhancement is rejected and we do not feel persuaded to accept her arguments that the award as determined in LPA 500 of 2001 should alone be accepted. We have already given our reasoning as to why the earlier decision of the Division Bench was was are not in a position to accept the award as determined in LPA 500 of 2001. 3.The LPA is, therefore, allowed enhancing the amount of compensation to Rs.116/-per square yard in relation to the land acquired vide notification dated 10-12- 1986. The land owners shall also be entitled to other statutory benefits like interest and solatium in terms of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended. Sd/- Sd/- {Mehtab S Gill} {K Kannan} Judge Judge 27-11-2008