R.F.A. No. 1207 of 1997 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 1207 of 1997 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.10.2010 Bhag Singh and others .... Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .... Respondent Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. P. C. Dhiman and Ms. Ekta Thakur, Advocates, for the appellants. Mr. Deepak Sharma and Ms. Lisa Gill, Advocates, for Union Territory, Chandigarh. RAJESH BINDAL, J This order will dispose of appeals bearing RFA Nos. 1207, 1237, 1435, 1839, 1840 and 1996 of 1997, as the same arise out of common acquisition. The landowners have filed appeals seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts are that Chandigarh Administration, vide notification dated 17.11.1986, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), acquired land measuring 7.62 acres, situated within the revenue estate of village Maloya, Union Territory, Chandigarh, for setting up 66 KV Grid Sub-Station (West-Sector 39), Chandigarh. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, “the Collector”), vide award dated 6.3.1987, determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 85,000/- per acre. Aggrieved against the same, 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, assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 1,82,000/- per acre. Still dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, the landowners filed these appeals. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the acquired land which is a small portion of land, which is located quite close to already developed Sector 38, Chandigarh, where the Chandigarh Housing Board had constructed residential flats. The acquired land is close to the already constructed Water- works. Six years prior to the present acquisition, vide notification dated 30.8.1980, R.F.A. No. 1207 of 1997 -2- in the close vicinity, the land was acquired for construction of second Grain Market and Bulk Material Market. He further submitted that beyond Patiala Ki Rao (a seasonal rivulet), the land was acquired for rehabilitation colony vide notification dated 16.1.1987 for which award of ` 2,00,000/- per acre as was given by the learned court below has been upheld by this court in RFA No. 2002 of 1997 Amrao Singh and others vs Union Territory, Chandigarh, decided on 27.10.2010. Considering the aforesaid fact, the landowners in the present set of appeals are also entitled to at least ` 2,00,000/- per acre as compensation as there is difference of only two months in the two acquisitions. On the other hand, learned counsels for Union Territory, Chandigarh, submitted that just and fair compensation has been awarded by the learned court below to the landowners on the basis of evidence led by them on record which does not call for any interference by this court. The compensation should not be enhanced merely relying upon some other award. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. This court while deciding RFA No. 2002 of 1997 pertaining to acquisition of land vide notification dated 16.1.1987, for the rehabilitation of slum- dwellers upheld the award of the learned court below assessing the compensation of ` 2,00,000/- per acre. The land forming part of acquisition vide notification dated 16.1.1987 is located beyond the “Patiala Ki Rao” whereas the land in question is located towards urbanised portion of Chandigarh. On this side of “Patiala Ki Rao” is portion of land acquired for development as second grain and bulk material market vide notification dated 30.8.1980. It can very well be said that this portion of land is better located as far as the land dealt with in Amrao Singh's case (supra) is concerned. There is a difference of two months in the two acquisitions as the acquisition under consideration in the present set of appeals is two months earlier. However, considering the locational advantage, in my opinion, the landowners herein are entitled to compensation @ ` 2,00,000/- per acre without deducting any amount for the difference of two months. The landowners shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits available under the Act. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. 27.10.2010. (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge