R.F.A. No. 2323 of 2000 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) R.F.A. No. 2323 of 2000 Date of decision: September 01 ,2008 Surinder Singh ..Appellant v. Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent (2) R.F.A. No. 2324 of 2000 Bant Singh and others ..Appellants v. Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent (3) R.F.A. No. 2325 of 2000 Janak Singh and others ..Appellants v. Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent ( 4) R.F.A. No. 2326 of 2000 Piara Singh ..Appellant v. Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent (5) R.F.A. No. 2327 of 2000 Ran Singh ..Appellant v. Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent (6) R.F.A. No. 2383 of 2000 Ruldo and another ..Appellants v. Union of India .. Respondent R.F.A. No. 2323 of 2000 [2] (7) R.F.A. No. 2384 of 2000 Dial Singh ..Appellant v. Union of India .. Respondent (8) R.F.A. No. 2385 of 2000 Dial Singh ..Appellants v. Union of India .. Respondent (9) R.F.A. No. 2386 of 2000 Pal Singh and others ..Appellants v. Union of India .. Respondent (10) R.F.A. No. 2387 of 2000 Harbans Kaur ..Appellant v. Union of India .. Respondent (11) R.F.A. No. 2388 of 2000 Dial Singh ..Appellant v. Union of India .. Respondent (12) R.F.A. No. 2389 of 2000 Ran Singh and others ..Appellants v. Union of India .. Respondent R.F.A. No. 2323 of 2000 [3] (13) R.F.A. No. 2390 of 2000 Dit Singh and others ..Appellants v. Union of India and others .. Respondent (14) R.F.A. No. 2391 of 2000 Hardit Singh and others ..Appellants v. Union of India .. Respondent (15) R.F.A. No. 2392 of 2000 Pal Singh and others ..Appellants v. Union of India .. Respondent (16) R.F.A. No. 2393 of 2000 Chand Singh and others ..Appellants v. Union of India and others .. Respondent (17) R.F.A. No. 2394 of 2000 Angrej Singh and others ..Appellants v. Union of India .. Respondent (18) R.F.A. No. 2417 of 2000 Mushtarka Malkan (Hasab Rasab) Khewatdars through its share holders ..Appellants v. Union of India .. Respondent R.F.A. No. 2323 of 2000 [4] (19) R.F.A. No. 101 of 2001 Dial Singh ..Appellant v. Union of India .. Respondent (20) R.F.A. No. 2022 of 2001 Ujjagar Singh and others ..Appellants v. Union of India and another .. Respondent (21) R.F.A. No. 2792 of 2001 Malhara Singh and another ..Appellants v. Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent (22) R.F.A. No. 2793 of 2001 Dayal Singh ..Appellant v. Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent (23) R.F.A. No. 2794 of 2001 Jaspal Singh and others ..Appellants v. Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent (24) R.F.A. No. 1728 of 2003 Ved Pal and others ..Appellants v. Union Territory, Chandigarh and another .. Respondent R.F.A. No. 2323 of 2000 [5] CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. P.C.Dhiman, Advocate for the appellants in R.F.A. No. 1728 of 2003. Ms. Ekta Thakur, Advocate for Mr. Thakur Kartar Singh, Advocate for the appellants in R.F.A. Nos. 2323, 2324, 2325, 2326 and 2327 of 2000 and 2792, 2793 and 2794 of 2001 Mr. R. K. Dhiman, Advocate for the appellants in R.F.A. Nos. 2383 to 2394, 2417 of 2000 and 101 and 2022 of 2001. Ms. Lisa Gill and Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocates for Union Territory, Chandigarh. Mr. Sanjiv Ghai, Advocate for Union Territory, Chandigarh in R.F.A. No. 2022 of 2001. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of the above-mentioned 24 appeals as the same arise out of award dated 29.4.2000 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh. However, the facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 2323 of 2000. The land owners are in appeal before this Court against the award of the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') being dissatisfied therefrom. Briefly, the facts are that the land in question was acquired vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 6.4.1992 for the purpose of providing accommodation to the Jawans of 20 Coys of Para Military Forces situated in Villages Dadu Majra and Dhanas of Union Territory, Chandigarh. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 31.7.1992. The award was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector) on 23.3.1993 granting the claimants compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre for the acquired land except for Gair Mumkin Nadi/Nala for which compensation was assessed at Rs. 75,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections which were referred for consideration by the learned Court below. Considering the material placed on record by the parties, the learned R.F.A. No. 2323 of 2000 [6] Court below awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 4,57,800/- per acre as against Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre granted by the Collector and for Gair Mumkin Nadi/Nala land, the compensation was assessed at Rs. 1,71,675/- per acre as against Rs. 75,000/- per acre. It is against this award of the learned Court below that the land owners are before this Court. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the compensation, as awarded by the learned Court below is much less as compared to the prices prevailing at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The acquired land was having great potential as the same forms part of Chandigarh, the City Beautiful. The acquired land adjoins the main road leading from Chandigarh to Mullanpur. Sectors 39 and 40 are located close to the boundaries of Village Dadu Majra. The situation of the land is similar to the land of Villages Kajheri and Burail. Reliance is placed upon the earlier award (Ex. A.15) and the judgment of this Court in R.F.A. No. 2511 of 1997—Bhajan Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, decided on 29.11.2006. Relying thereon, the submission is that the appellants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 10,73,119/- per acre . On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the appellants in the present case have been granted compensation much more than what they deserve. In fact, the same required reduction. Villages Dadu Majra and Dhanas are situated on one end of the territory of Chandigarh. The same are not part of the main urban planning and still are villages and will remain as such, therefore, there is no comparison of the land acquired with the land forming part of award Ex. A.15 or even judgment in Bhajan Singh's case (supra). Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. None of the counsel for the parties has pointed out as to whether any other appeal arising out of the same acquisition has been decided or is pending for decision. A perusal of award (Ex. A.15) shows that the same is pertaining to acquisition of land vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 15.10.1991 forming part of Village Burail. The acquisition was for the development of third phase of Chandigarh. The Collector had awarded a sum of Rs. 1,90,000/- per acre which was enhanced to Rs. 4,35,600/- per acre. R.F.A. No. 2323 of 2000 [7] As far as judgment of this Court in Bhajan Singh's case (supra) is concerned, for acquisition of land vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 8.7.1988, failling in Village Kajheri, for the purpose of development of third phase of Chandigarh, compensation was assessed at Rs. 7,50,000/- per acre. For a later notification issued for acquisition of land in Village Kajheri on 22.5.1992, the value was assessed at Rs. 10,12,000/- per acre relying upon the earlier award in Bhajan Singh's case (supra) and giving increase for three years and ten months at the rate of 10% per annum. A perusal of the site plan of Chandigarh as prepared by Town Planning Department vide Drawing No. 6 dated 11.3.1977 shows that the location of area of Village Burail forms part of Sector 45, whereas Village Kajheri is consisting of Sector 43 and part of Sector 52, which is the part of main urban planning of the city, whereas the land under acquisition is on the western end near the boundary of the State of Punjab, where still Villages Dadu Majra and Dhanas are in existence. There can possibly be no comparison with the potential of the land situated in Villages Kajheri, Nizampur Kumra and Burail which were part of the scheme for urbanisation of Chandigarh which were acquired for expansion of third phase of Chandigarh. The argument of learned counsel for the appellants that the entire land in Chandigarh should be valued at the same rate is patently misconceived. The location of the land is always a relevant factor for consideration of the value thereof. There is no site plan on record to show the exact location of the acquired land. The appellants had not placed on record any sale deed to substantiate their claim of compensation of the acquired land which is pertaining to the area in question. While determining the value of the acquired land forming part of Villages Kajheri, Burail and Nizampur Kumra, the Court had considered the relevant transactions in the area in question and on the basis thereof the compensation was assessed. The distance of the acquired land from the land which is sought to be compared is about 4 to 5 kilometers. Another major reason for different valuation in the quality of land, which is sought to be compared by the appellants, is that the area forming part of Villages Kajheri, Burail and Nizampur Kumra are connected with the urbanised area of Mohali in continuation, whereas the land under acquisition is situated on western end R.F.A. No. 2323 of 2000 [8] of the city where there is a seasonal river. A perusal of the award of the Collector shows that out of the total land acquired, land measuring 9 kanals 16 marlas was Gair Mumkin Nadi/Nala which shows that the location of the land is quite close to the seasonal river flowing through the area. Even if the award and the judgment, referred to by the learned counsel for the appellants, are considered, still in my opinion, the assessment of compensation made by the learned Court below is just and fair keeping in view the future potentiality and the location of the land, as compared to the land which was subject matter of award and the judgment relied upon. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present appeals. The same are dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge September 01 ,2008 mk