R.F.A. No. 2340 of 1998 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 24.9.2008 (1) R.F.A. No. 2340 of 1998 Suraj Bhan and others .. Appellants v. Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent (2) R.F.A. No. 2342 of 1998 Hari Singh and others .. Appellants v. Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent (3) R.F.A. No. 2343 of 1998 Gurcharan Singh and others .. Appellants v. Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent (4) R.F.A. No. 2344 of 1998 Mewa Singh .. Appellant v. Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent (5) R.F.A. No. 3248 of 1998 Hazoora Singh .. Appellant v. Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent (6) R.F.A. No. 3249 of 1998 Surjan Singh .. Appellant v. Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent R.F.A. No. 2340 of 1998 [ 2] (7) R.F.A. No. 3250 of 1998 Nirmal Singh and others .. Appellants v. Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent (8) R.F.A. No. 3251 of 1998 Piara Singh .. Appellant v. Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent (9) R.F.A. No. 3252 of 1998 Gurcharan Singh and others .. Appellants v. Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. P.C. Dhiman, Advocate for the appellants Ms. Lisa Gill and Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocates for Union Territory, Chandigarh Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of the above mentioned R.F.A. Nos. 2340, 2342, 2343, 2344, 3248 to 3252 of 1998, as the same arise out of a common acquisition. The land owners are in appeal before this Court against the award of the learned Court below for further enhancement of the compensation for the acquired land. In R.F.A. Nos. 2340, 2343, 3248 and 3250, the appellants are seeking compensation on account of acquisition of super structure. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 15.10.1991, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), Chandigarh Administration acquired 83 acres of land in Village Burail for development of third phase of Chandigarh City. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') determined the market value of land at Rs. 2,50,080/- per acre. Aggrieved against the same, the appellants filed objections which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, awarded compensation @ Rs. R.F.A. No. 2340 of 1998 [ 3] 4,35,600/- per acre for the acquired land. Learned counsel for the appellants prayed two-fold claim in the present set of appeals, namely, for enhancement of compensation on account of acquisition of land and further on account of acquisition of super structures. As far as fair value of the acquired land is concerned, reliance was placed upon a judgment of this Court in R.F.A. No. 2326 of 1998 –Som Nath and others v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, decided on 3.9.2008, wherein for the land acquired vide notification dated 11.10.1991 pertaining to Village Moja Jhumru (now Sectors 48 and 49, Chandigarh) for development of third phase of Union Territory, Chandigarh, the compensation was assessed at Rs. 9,85,000/- per acre. As far as valuation of super structure is concerned, the submission is that the valuation report, as placed on record by the appellants, was quite in detail and no default as such could be found therein. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to the same amount on account of acquisition of super structure. Reliance has been placed upon judgments of this Court in R.F.A. No. 2560 of 1987 –Hazura Singh v. Union of India, decided on 25.2.2004; 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. The Union of India, decided on 18.8.1981; Jai Kaur v. State of Punjab and another, 1992 LACC 501 and Union of India v. Pal Singh and another, (1994-3) PLR 569. He further submitted that the issue regarding structure being authorised or unauthorised could not be gone into by the Collector as the same did not fall in his domain and further the Act does not talk about any such factor to be considered for the purpose of determination of fair value of the land and the structure erected thereon. Learned counsel for Union Territory does not dispute that in Som Nath's case (supra), the value of the acquired land therein for third phase of Chandigarh was assessed at Rs. 9,85,000/- per acre and the notification in the present case was issued merely after 4 days of the notification therein and the acquisition was also pertaining to the land in the vicinity for the same purpose. Keeping in view this fact, for the detailed reasons recorded in Som Nath's case (supra), I deem it appropriate to assess the value of the acquired land even in the present case also @ Rs. 9,85,000/- per acre. As far as the claim on account of super structure is concerned, the Collector awarded certain amount to various land owners on account of acquisition of super structure. The award of the Collector on that account was upheld. The claim of the land owners is that they are entitled to compensation on account of super structure as per the valuation report submitted by them, whereas the R.F.A. No. 2340 of 1998 [ 4] submission of learned counsel for the Union Territory is that the land owners are not entitled to any compensation at all as the construction raised by them was totally unauthorised. She submitted that in terms of the provisions of the Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952 (for short, `the 1952 Act'), no construction could be raised without prior sanction of the competent authority and the land owners having not produced any sanction, they were merely entitled to the value of scrap and not value of the construction raised by them. The issue regarding valuation of construction was considered by this Court in R.F.A. No. 663 of 2004-- Union Territory, Chandigarh v. Sajjan Singh, decided on 2.8.2006, where this Court dismissed the appeal filed by Union Territory, Chandigarh challenging the enhancement in compensation on account of acquisition of super structure pertaining to acquisition of land of villages Nizampur, Burail and Jhumru. In the aforesaid case, the learned Additional District Judge had granted increase @ 25% on the value of super structure as assessed by the Departmental Valuer. In Hazura Singh's case (supra), this Court further enhanced the compensation on account of acquisition of super structure where the land belonging to Village Kajheri was acquired vide notification dated 28.2.1984. In Hans Raj's case (supra), the issue regarding the construction on the acquired land being authorised/unauthorised was considered on the basis of material on record. There even the permission to raise construction was declined, whereas in pursuance of the notices issued to the land owners therein for demolition of the construction, the proceedings were dropped and the findings recorded by the learned Court below declining compensation on account of the construction being unauthorised were set aside. It was further opined therein that Section 3(a) of the Act provides that expression `land' includes benefits to arise out of the land and the things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth. It is not making any distinction between authorised and unauthorised construction. In Pal Singh's case (supra), this Court awarded enhancement to the extent of 50% of the difference between PWD rates and the private valuer. In State of Orissa v. Rajakishore Das, (1996) 4 SCC 221, relied upon by learned counsel for Chandigarh Administration, the issue under consideration was in the light of specific amendment being there in the Act for the purpose of Orrisa Town Planning and Improvement Trust Act, 1956, where specific bar was created for grant of compensation on account of construction of unauthorised building, whereas no such amendment pertaining to Chandigarh has R.F.A. No. 2340 of 1998 [ 5] been pointed out by learned counsel for Union Territory, Chandigarh. Further, a perusal of the grounds of appeal raised by Chandigarh Administration in the appeals filed by it challenging the award of the learned Court below, shows that no issue was raised as regards the grant of compensation on account of super structure. The only dispute was raised with regard to the valuation of the acquired land, meaning thereby the issue only remained in defence of the claim made by the land owners for increase in the value of super structure acquired by Union Territory. In addition to this, a reference can further be made to the 1952 Act, where though a restriction has been raised on unauthorised construction within the controlled area as declared for the purposes of the aforesaid Act, but the same would be of no help to the Union Territory for the reason that nothing has come on record as to what were the boundaries of the controlled area at the relevant time and further the constructions in the present case being of some rooms and cattle sheds etc., which are for the purposes subservient to agriculture and in terms of Section 15 of the 1952 Act, the provisions of this Act were not applicable. Keeping in view my aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the submissions of learned counsel for Union Territory, Chandigarh that the land owners are not entitled to any compensation on account of acquisition of super structure. Now the second issue comes regarding the valuation of the super structure. The land owners in the present case have been granted compensation for the acquisition of super structure of the amount calculated at P.W.D. rates, whereas the land owners got the construction valued through a private valuer. There is substantial difference between the two valuations. Certain guess work has to be applied by this Court. Keeping in view the earlier judgments of this Court where increase from 25% to 50% was granted in the valuation at P.W.D. rates, in my considered opinion, even if a conservative view is taken, the land owners in the present case would be entitled to increase of 25% on the value of the super structure as assessed by the Collector because it is not even disputed in the evidence led by Union Territory, Chandigarh that there had been increase in the cost of construction even as per the estimates prepared by the Departmental Valuer and further for the government construction, the cement and steel, which are major items, are supplied by the government at fixed rates. In view of my aforesaid discussion, the value of the acquired land is determined at Rs. 9,85,000/- per acre. As far as valuation of super structure is concerned, the land owners shall be entitled to increase of 25% on the value, as assessed by the Collector. The land owners shall also be entitled to all the statutory R.F.A. No. 2340 of 1998 [ 6] benefits available under the Act. The appeals are allowed with costs in the above terms. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 24.9.2008 mk