RFA No. 3870 of 2003 [1] In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision : 5.3.2010 1. R. F. A No. 3870 of 2003 (O&M) Man Mohan Singh ..... Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 2. R. F. A No. 3871 of 2003 (O&M) Gurnam Singh ..... Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 3. R. F. A No. 3872 of 2003 (O&M) Jai Chand and another ..... Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 4. R. F. A No. 3873 of 2003 (O&M) Ronki ..... Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 5. R. F. A No. 3874 of 2003 (O&M) Ronki ..... Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 6. R. F. A No. 3875 of 2003 (O&M) Hakam Singh (deceased) through LRs ..... Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 7. R. F. A No. 3876 of 2003 (O&M) Bhagwant Singh ..... Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 8. R. F. A No. 3877 of 2003 (O&M) Dev Raj and others ..... Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent RFA No. 3870 of 2003 [2] 9. R. F. A No. 4265 of 2003 (O&M) Dev Singh ..... Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 10. R. F. A No. 4266 of 2003 (O&M) Amarjit Singh ..... Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 11. R. F. A No. 4267 of 2003 (O&M) Bhag Singh ..... Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 12. R. F. A No. 4268 of 2003 (O&M) Harbans Singh and others ..... Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 13. R. F. A No. 4269 of 2003 (O&M) Udhwinder Singh ..... Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 14. R. F. A No. 4270 of 2003 (O&M) Daljeet Singh ..... Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 15. R. F. A No. 4271 of 2003 (O&M) Harbhajan Singh ..... Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 16. R. F. A No. 4273 of 2003 (O&M) Surjit Singh ..... Appellant vs Gram Panchayat, Nizampur Kumbra and others ..... Respondents 17. R. F. A No. 4509 of 2003 (O&M) Sant Ram ..... Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent RFA No. 3870 of 2003 [3] 18. R. F. A No. 4525 of 2003 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Appellant vs Gurmail Singh and others ..... Respondents 19. R. F. A No. 4526 of 2003 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Appellant vs Swami Saran ..... Respondent 20. R. F. A No. 4527 of 2003 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Appellant vs Ronki ..... Respondent 21. R. F. A No. 4528 of 2003 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Appellant vs Dev Singh ..... Respondent 22. R. F. A No. 4529 of 2003 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Appellant vs Labh Singh and another ..... Respondents 23. R. F. A No. 4530 of 2003 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Appellant vs Labh Singh ..... Respondent 24. R. F. A No. 4531 of 2003 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Appellant vs Harbhajan Singh ..... Respondent 25. R. F. A No. 4532 of 2003 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Appellant vs Achhra Singh and another ..... Respondents 26. R. F. A No. 4533 of 2003 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Appellant vs Gurdev Singh and others ..... Respondents RFA No. 3870 of 2003 [4] 27. R. F. A No. 4534 of 2003 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Appellant vs Bant Singh ..... Respondent 28. R. F. A No. 4535 of 2003 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Appellant vs Labh Singh and others ..... Respondents 29. R. F. A No. 4578 of 2003 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Appellant vs Gurmeet Singh ..... Respondent 30. R. F. A No. 4579 of 2003 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Appellant vs Hakam Singh ..... Respondent 31. R. F. A No. 4580 of 2003 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Appellant vs Jai Chand and another ..... Respondents 32. R. F. A No. 4581 of 2003 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Appellant vs Bhagwant Singh ..... Respondent 33. R. F. A No. 4582 of 2003 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Appellant vs Man Mohan Singh ..... Respondent 34. R. F. A No. 4583 of 2003 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Appellant vs Sampuran Singh and others ..... Respondents 35. R. F. A No. 4584 of 2003 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Appellant vs Dev Raj and others ..... Respondents RFA No. 3870 of 2003 [5] 36. R. F. A No. 4585 of 2003 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Appellant vs Gurnam Singh ..... Respondent 37. R. F. A No. 4586 of 2003 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Appellant vs Sant Ram ..... Respondent 38. R. F. A No. 4587 of 2003 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Appellant vs Gurbax Singh and others ..... Respondents 39. R. F. A No. 4588 of 2003 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Appellant vs Harbans Singh and others ..... Respondents 40. R. F. A No. 4589 of 2003 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Appellant vs Ronki ..... Respondent 41. R. F. A No. 4617 of 2003 (O&M) Labh Singh ..... Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 42. R. F. A No. 4713 of 2003 (O&M) Swami Saran ..... Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 43. R. F. A No. 4753 of 2003 (O&M) Labh Singh and another ..... Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 44. R. F. A No. 1779 of 2004 (O&M) Mohinder Kaur ..... Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent RFA No. 3870 of 2003 [6] 45. R. F. A No. 2165 of 2004 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Appellant vs Daljeet Singh ..... Respondent 46. R. F. A No. 2166 of 2004 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Appellant vs Amarjit Singh ..... Respondent 47. R. F. A No. 2697 of 2004 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Appellant vs Hari Kishan and others ..... Respondents 48. R. F. A No. 2793 of 2005 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Appellant vs Gajju Singh alias Gajjan Singh ..... Respondent 49. R. F. A No. 2794 of 2005 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Appellant vs Udhwinder Singh ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. P. C. Dhiman, Mr. R. K. Dhiman, Mr. Arvind Kashyap and Mr. R. K. Dhiman, Advocate for Mr. D. S. Raghu, Advocates for the land owners. Ms. Lisa Gill, Mr. Deepak Sharma and Mr. Vishal Sodhi, Advocates for Union Territory, Chandigarh. ... Rajesh Bindal, J. This order shall dispose of the above mentioned 49 appeals, as the same arise out of a common acquisition. R.F.A. Nos. 3870 to 3877, 4265 to 4271, 4273, 4509, 4617, 4713, 4753 of 2003 and 1779 of 2004 have been filed by the land owners seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. R.F.A. Nos. 4525 to 4535, 4578 to 4589 of 2003, 2165, 2166, 2697 of 2004, 2793 and 2794 of 2005 have been filed by Union Territory, Chandigarh seeking reduction in the amount of compensation awarded to the land owners for the acquired land. RFA No. 3870 of 2003 [7] The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 3870 of 2003. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Chandigarh Administration vide notification dated 15.5.1998, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act’), acquired the land situated in village Palsora for development of Phase-III, Sector 56, Chandigarh. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector’) assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 9,60,000/- per acre. The land owners feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Collector, filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 12,90,240/- per acre. Learned counsel for the land owners relied upon judgment of this Court in R.F.A. No. 1095 of 2000—Ronki v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, decided on 18.5.2009, pertaining to acquisition of land of same village carried out vide notification dated 8.7.1994 for development of third phase of Chandigarh (Sector 56)/ The Collector in that case had assessed the fair value of the land at Rs. 3,38,100/- per acre, which was enhanced to Rs. 5,36,000/- per acre by the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh and was further enhanced to Rs. 12,54,880/- per acre by this Court. If increase @ 12% per annum is added thereon for a period of three years and 10 months of difference in the two notifications, the value of the acquired land would come out to Rs. 18,30,840/- per acre. Further reliance was placed upon judgment of this Court in RFA No. 3921 of 2007 –Arunash Chander Kaushik and others v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, decided 10.2.2009. The issue for consideration in that case was for acquisition of land of villages Nizampur Burail, Nizampur Kumbra, Kajheri and Jhumru for development of third phase of Chandigarh vide notification dated 20.8.1998. In that case, the Collector assessed the market value of the land at Rs. 8,28,750/- per acre for village Nizampur Kumbra; Rs. 8,18,573/- per acre for village Kajheri; Rs. 7,71,735/- per acre for village Burail and Rs. 4,98,102/- per acre for village Jhumru, which was enhanced to Rs. 13,44,000/- per acre by the learned court below and further enhanced to Rs. 17,32,000/- per acre by this Court. Referring to the aforesaid judgments, the submission of learned counsel for the land owners is that the case in hand, being similarly situated, the land owners herein are entitled to enhancement of compensation, considering the aforesaid judgments, which are in the form of judicial precedents determining the value of the acquired land in the vicinity. Learned counsel further submitted that both the aforesaid judgments have been accepted by Chandigarh Administration and as per their information, no further appeal has been filed. To buttress their RFA No. 3870 of 2003 [8] arguments, learned counsel further submitted that the land in question was acquired on 15.5.1998 and the award of the Collector was Rs. 9,60,000/- per acre. The fact that for the acquisition pertaining to the same village carried out on 8.7.1994, the Collector had awarded merely a sum of Rs. 3,38,100/- per acre, as the amount of compensation, which itself shows the rising trend of prices in the area. The compensation awarded by the Collector even for the acquisition of land carried out vide notification dated 20.8.1998 pertaining to villages Nizampur Kumbra, Burail, Kajheri and Jhumru for the purpose of development of third phase of Chandigarh was in the range of Rs. 4,98,106/- to Rs. 8,28,750/- per acre, which was also less than the amount awarded by the Collector in the present case. On the other hand, learned counsel for Union Territory, though not disputing the judgments delivered by this court, argued in the same lines, as was being argued in other cases decided by this court earlier. It is stated that judicial precedents only should not be relied upon for determination of compensation for the acquired land and on the basis of other evidence produced by the land owners on record, no further enhancement could possibly be made. Learned counsel further submitted that even if the earlier judgments were relied upon, increase should not be granted @ 12% per annum, as is sought to be claimed, as there is no material on record to justify the same. As regards challenge to the earlier judgments of this court is concerned, learned counsels submitted that opinion was given to the Administration for filing appeal. However, they do not have any information about the actual filing or non-filing of the appeal. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred records. As far as location of the land is concerned, the same is not in dispute. It was acquired for development as third phase of Union Territory, Chandigarh, which is sandwitched between the already developed area of Chandigarh on one side and Mohali on the other side. The land in this belt was acquired vide various notifications issued from time to time. This court has considered number of appeals arising out of acquisitions carried out for the purpose of development of third phase of Chandigarh, which started way back in 1988. The land, which was acquired for the purpose of development of third phase of Chandigarh is pertaining to villages Nizampur Kumbra, Kajheri, Palsora, Jhumru, Burail, Palsora and Badheri. A perusal of the various awards of the Collector for the aforesaid acquisitions shows that for various acquisitions, there was increasing trend in the value of the land even determined by the Collector, which is evident from the following table: RFA No. 3870 of 2003 [9] Sr. No. Name of village Date of notification Award of the Collector (per acre) ……………………………………………………………………………………… 1. Nizampur Burail 8.7.l988 Rs. 66,000/- 2. Kajheri 8.7.1988 Rs. 2,00,000/- 3. Nizampur Kumbra 29.7.1988 Rs. 74,000/- 4. Jhumru 11.10.1991 Rs. 1,90,000/- 5. Kajheri 22.5.1992 Rs. 2,00,000/- 6. Palsora 8.7.1994 Rs. 3,38,100/- 7. Nizampur Kumbra 3.7.1997 Rs. 10,86,500/- 8. Nizampur Burail 3.7.1997 Rs. 5,91,200/- 9. Palsora 15.5.1998 Rs. 9,60,000/- .................................................................................................................................... There is substantial increase in the award of the Collector even pertaining to the land of village Palsora if the acquisition carried out vide notification dated 8.7.1994 is considered vis-à-vis the present acquisition, where the same was enhanced from Rs. 3,38,100/- to Rs. 9,60,000/- per acre, which itself shows the rising trend in the prices of the land in the area during this period. Considering the aforesaid facts, the issue before this Court is as to whether the judgment in Ronki’s case (supra) should be relied upon where the acquisition was carried out for third phase of Chandigarh vide notification dated 8.7.1994 pertaining to village Palsora or judgment in Arunash Chander Kaushik’s case (supra) where the acquisition was for third phase of Chandigarh pertaining to the land of other villages vide notification dated 20.8.1998. There is no definite information furnished by learned counsel for the Union Territory to submit that any of the earlier judgments of this court determining the value of the acquired land in Chandigarh was challenged by them any further and as to whether there is any interim stay or not. If the value of the acquired land in Ronki’s case (supra) is considered and increase is granted for the time gap in the two notifications of three years and 10 months, the value of the land acquired in the present case would come out to Rs. 18,30,840/- per month. However, in Arunash Chander Kaushik’s case (supra), the acquisition was also for development of third phase of Chandigarh and land was pertaining to various neighbouring villages, such as Nizampur Burail, Nizampur Kumbra, Kajheri and Jhumru vide notification dated RFA No. 3870 of 2003 [10] 20.8.1998, i.e., three months prior o the acquisition in the present case and the value determined therein was Rs. 17,32,000/- per acre by this Court. In my opinion, it would be safe to rely upon the award pertaining to Arunash Chander Kaushik’s case (supra), as the same was pertaining to acquisition of land quite close to the acquisition in the present case and determine the value of the acquired land at the same rate. For the reasons recorded above, the impugned award of the learned court below is modified to the extent that the value of the acquired land is determined at Rs. 17,32,000/- per acre. The land owners shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available to them under the Act. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 5.3.2010 mk