Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kamla Rani And Others vs U. T. Chandigarh on 30 January, 2009
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
R.F.A. No. 1789 of 2000 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision: January 30 , 2009
1. R. F. A. No. 1789 of 2000 (O&M)
Kamla Rani and others ..... Appellants
vs
U. T. Chandigarh .... Respondent
2. R. F. A. No. 1790 of 2000 (O&M) Smt. Ajmer Kaur (dead) through LRs. ... Appellant vs Union Territory of Chandigarh ... Respondent
3. R. F. A. No. 1895 of 2000 (O&M) Hargopal Nath ... Appellant vs Union of India ... Respondent
4. R. F. A. No. 2020 of 2000 (O&M) Harinder Pal Singh ... Appellant vs Union of India ... Respondent
5. R. F. A. No. 2021 of 2000 (O&M) Harpreet Singh ... Appellant vs Union of India ... Respondent
6. R. F. A. No. 2022 of 2000 (O&M) Harinder Kaur ... Appellant vs Union of India ... Respondent
7. R. F. A. No. 2023 of 2000 (O&M) Preet Inder Kaur ... Appellant vs Union of India ... Respondent
8. R. F. A. No. 2403 of 2000 (O&M) Madan Puri and others ... Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ... Respondent R.F.A. No. 1789 of 2000 [2]
9. R. F. A. No. 2404 of 2000 (O&M) Harjeet Puri Chela Lachhman Puri ... Appellant vs Union of India ... Respondent
10. R. F. A. No. 228 of 2005 (O&M) Gurjit Singh ... Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ... Respondent
11. R. F. A. No. 229 of 2005 (O&M) Gurjit Singh ... Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. R. K. Dhiman, Mr. D.S. Raghu and Ms. Ekta Thakur, Advocates for the land owners.
Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate for Union Territory, Chandigarh.
Rajesh Bindal J.
This order will dispose of a bunch of 11 appeals, as the same arise out of one acquisition.
The land owners are in appeal against the award of the learned court below seeking further enhancement of compensation.
The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 1789 of 2000. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notifications dated 15.6.1989 and 19.10.1989, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), land measuring 29.75 acres, situated in the revenue estate of Manimajra, was acquired for development of residential-cum-commercial complex, Scheme No. 2 (Pocket No. 6), Manimajra. The same was followed by notification dated 18.10.1989, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of the land at Rs. 1,65,400/- 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 determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 4,35,600/- per acre.
Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that a portion of the land, the value of which is required to be determined by this court in the present R.F.A. No. 1789 of 2000 [3] set of appeals was acquired vide notification dated 15.6.1989 and 19.10.1989 (R.F.A. Nos. 228 and 229 of 2005). The land is situated on the main Chandigarh- Panchkula road adjoining Kalagram. The land in question was acquired for development of Pocket No. 6 in Scheme No. 2 as residential-cum-commercial complex at Mani Majra. In R.F.A. No. 2117 of 1997 -Jagir Singh v. Union Territory, decided on 15.10.2008, this court has considered the issue regarding determination of fair value of the land acquired vide notification of the same date for development as Pocket No. 2 which is situated just on the other side of the road and determined the fair value of the acquired land therein at Rs. 151/- per square yard. The Land owners, whose land was acquired vide notification dated 15.6.1989 are entitled to be granted compensation @ Rs. 151/- per square yard, whereas the land owners whose land was acquired vide notification dated 19.10.1989, having been made four months thereafter, they should be granted increase thereon @ 12% per annum and compensation be determined accordingly. It was further submitted that the land in question is strategically located.
Learned counsel for the Union Territory though did not dispute the factual position, but submitted that in the absence of any independent evidence on record showing value of the land in the vicinity at the time of acquisition, mere earlier judgments should not be relied upon.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is a fact on record that notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case was issued on 15.6.1989 and 19.10.1989 pertaining to the land of revenue estate of Village Mani Majra, which was acquired for development of residential-cum- commercial complex for Pocket No. 6. The issue under consideration before this Court in Jagir Singh's case (supra) was for determination of fair value of the land acquired for Pocket No. 2 in the vicinity vide notification dated 15.6.1989. This Court already having considered the issue regarding valuation of the land in the vicinity, in my opinion, that would be a good piece of evidence to be relied upon for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land in the present case, even if there is no sale deed produced on record by the parties executed in the intervening period.
For the detailed reasons recorded in Jagir Singh's case, the appeals (except R.F.A. Nos. 228 and 229 of 2005) are allowed in the same terms and value of the acquired land therein is determined at Rs. 151/- per square yard.
As far as R.F.A. Nos. 228 and 229 of 2005 are concerned, where the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 19.10.1989, considering the aforesaid facts and also the fact that in Jagir Kaur's case (supra), annual increase @ R.F.A. No. 1789 of 2000 [4] 12% per annum was granted, I deem it appropriate to grant 4% increase on the amount of compensation assessed for acquisition of land vide notification dated 15.6.1989 and adding Rs. 6/- thereon, the compensation in the present set of appeals (R.F.A. Nos. 228 and 229 of 2005) is assessed at Rs. 157/- per square yard.
The land owners shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits available under the Act.
The appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated above.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge 30.1.2009 mk