Punjab-Haryana High Court
Som Nath And Others vs Union Territory on 3 September, 2008
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
R.F.A. No. 2326 of 1998 [1]
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
Date of decision : September 03 ,2008
1. R. F. A No. 2326 of 1998
Som Nath and others ..... Appellants
vs
Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent
2. R. F. A No. 1089 of 1997 Mukhtiar Singh ..... Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent
3. R. F. A No. 1090 of 1997 Balbir Singh ..... Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent
4. R. F. A No. 1664 of 1997 Ishwar Singh ..... Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 5. R. F. A No. 1783 of 1997 Smt. Goran and another (deceased) through LRs. ..... Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 6. R. F. A No. 1784 of 1997 Rattan Lal and others ..... Appellants vs Union of India and another .... Respondents 7. R. F. A No. 1991 of 1997 Rajinder Singh and others ..... Appellants vs Union of India ..... Respondent R.F.A. No. 2326 of 1998 [2] 8. R. F. A No. 2009 of 1997 Chinder Singh and others ..... Appellants vs Union of India and others ..... Respondents 9. R. F. A No. 2025 of 1997 Khudkismat Singh ..... Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 10. R. F. A No. 2026 of 1997 Smt. Jit Kaur and others ..... Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 11. R. F. A No. 2034 of 1997 Chinder Singh and another ..... Appellants vs Union of India and others ..... Respondents 12. R. F. A No. 2097 of 1997 Sher Singh and others ..... Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 13. R. F. A No. 2218 of 1997 Rulia ..... Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 14. R. F. A No. 2279 of 1997 Bakhtawar Singh and others ..... Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 15. R. F. A No. 2298 of 1997 Sher Singh and others ..... Appellants vs Union of India ..... Respondent R.F.A. No. 2326 of 1998 [3] 16. R. F. A No. 2299 of 1997 Amar Kaur and another ..... Appellants vs Union of India ..... Respondent 17. R. F. A No. 2300 of 1997 Smt. Janki Devi and others .... Appellants vs Union of India and others ... Respondents 18. R. F. A No. 2301 of 1997 Balbir Singh and others ..... Appellants vs Union of India and others ..... Respondents 19. R. F. A No. 2302 of 1997 Som Nath ..... Appellant vs Union of India ..... Respondent 20. R. F. A No. 2303 of 1997 Balwant Singh ..... Appellant vs Union of India ..... Respondent 21. R. F. A No. 2304 of 1997 Bhag Singh ..... Appellant vs Union of India ..... Respondent 22. R. F. A No. 2305 of 1997 Teja Singh ..... Appellant vs Union of India ..... Respondent 23. R. F. A No. 2308 of 1997 Baldev Singh and another ..... Appellants vs Union of India and another ..... Respondents R.F.A. No. 2326 of 1998 [4] 24. R. F. A No. 2311 of 1997 Kashmiri Lal ..... Appellant vs Union of India ..... Respondent 25. R. F. A No. 2312 of 1997 Baldev Singh and another ..... Appellants vs Union of India ..... Respondent 26. R. F. A No. 2313 of 1997 Tara ..... Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 27. R. F. A No. 2316 of 1997 Baldev Singh and another ..... Appellants vs Union of India ..... Respondent 28. R. F. A No. 2317 of 1997 Baldev Singh and another ..... Appellants vs Union of India ..... Respondent 29. R. F. A No. 2319 of 1997 Smt. Gurdial Kaur and others ..... Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 30. R. F. A No. 2320 of 1997 Amarjit Singh and another ..... Appellants vs Union of India ..... Respondent 31. R. F. A No. 2321 of 1997 Sant Singh and others ..... Appellants vs Union of India ..... Respondent R.F.A. No. 2326 of 1998 [5] 32. R. F. A No. 2322 of 1997 Smt. Shyam Devi ..... Appellant vs Union of India ..... Respondent 33. R. F. A No. 2323 of 1997 Kehar Singh (deceased) through LRs. ..... Appellant vs Union of India ..... Respondent 34. R. F. A No. 2324 of 1997 Tarlok Singh and others ..... Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 35. R. F. A No. 2325 of 1997 Jitender Singh and others ..... Appellants vs Union of India ..... Respondent 36. R. F. A No. 2336 of 1997 Kehar Singh and others ..... Appellants vs Union of India ..... Respondent 37. R. F. A No. 2352 of 1997 Malkiat Singh and others ..... Appellants vs Union of India ..... Respondent 38. R. F. A No. 2353 of 1997 Balbir Singh and others ..... Appellants vs Union of India and others ..... Respondents 39. R. F. A No. 2155 of 1998 Mohan Singh and another ..... Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent R.F.A. No. 2326 of 1998 [6] 40. R. F. A No. 2169 of 1998 Sukh Pal Singh ..... Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 41. R. F. A No. 2170 of 1998 Gulab Singh ..... Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 42. R. F. A No. 2171 of 1998 Bhopal Singh and others ..... Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 43. R. F. A No. 2172 of 1998 Harvinder Singh ..... Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 44. R. F. A No. 2173 of 1998 Arvinder Singh Gill ..... Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 45. R. F. A No. 2328 of 1998 Surjan Singh and others ..... Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 46. R. F. A No. 2329 of 1998 Amar Singh (deceased) through LRs. and others ..... Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 47. R. F. A No. 2330 of 1998 Inder Singh ..... Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent R.F.A. No. 2326 of 1998 [7] 48. R. F. A No. 3143 of 1998 Smt. Gaindi and others ..... Appellants vs Union of India ..... Respondent 49. R. F. A No. 3144 of 1998 Sukhdev Singh and others ..... Appellants vs Union of India and others ..... Respondents 50. R. F. A No. 3145 of 1998 Smt. Amar Kaur and others ..... Appellants vs Union of India and others ..... Respondents 51. R. F. A No. 3247 of 1998 Surjan Singh and others ..... Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 52. R. F. A No. 3586 of 1998 Surjan Singh and another ..... Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 53. R. F. A No. 3897 of 1998 Jagit Singh and others ..... Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 54. R. F. A No. 4164 of 1998 Bahadur Singh ..... Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent 55. R. F. A No. 575 of 1999 Sher Singh ..... Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent R.F.A. No. 2326 of 1998 [8] 56. R. F. A No. 576 of 1999 Kehar Singh and others ..... Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .... Respondent 57. R. F. A No. 614 of 1999 Dial Singh and others ..... Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .... Respondent 58. R. F. A No. 1701 of 1999 Bhag Singh and others ..... Appellants vs Union of India .... Respondent 59. R. F. A No. 1702 of 1999 Gurdev Singh and others ..... Appellants vs Union of India .... Respondent 60. R. F. A No. 1703 of 1999 Malkiat Singh and others ..... Appellants vs Union of India .... Respondent 61. R. F. A No. 1704 of 1999 Baldev Singh ..... Appellant vs Union of India .... Respondent 62. R. F. A No. 1705 of 1999 Jang Bahadur and others ..... Appellants vs Union of India .... Respondent 63. R. F. A No. 1806 of 1999 Baldev Singh and others ..... Appellants vs Union of India and others .... Respondents R.F.A. No. 2326 of 1998 [9] 64. R. F. A No. 1807 of 1999 Chanan Kaur and others ..... Appellants vs Union of India .... Respondent 65. R. F. A No. 2186 of 1999 Baldev Singh and others ..... Appellants vs Union of India and others .... Respondents 66. R. F. A No. 401 of 2001 Amarjit Kaur ..... Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh and others .... Respondents 67. R. F. A No. 402 of 2001 Amarjit Kaur ..... Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh and others .... Respondents 68. R. F. A No. 411 of 2001 Kehar Singh and others ..... Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .... Respondent 69. R. F. A No. 412 of 2001 Bachan Singh and others ..... Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .... Respondent 70. R. F. A No. 413 of 2001 Uttam Singh and another .... Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .... Respondent 71. R. F. A No. 414 of 2001 Shamsher Singh and others ..... Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .... Respondent R.F.A. No. 2326 of 1998 [10] 72. R. F. A No. 932 of 2001 Surjit Singh and others ..... Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh and another .... Respondents 73. R. F. A No. 949 of 2001 Rulia and others ..... Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh and another .... Respondents 74. R. F. A No. 950 of 2001 Harnek Singh ..... Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .... Respondent 75. R. F. A No. 951 of 2001 Dessa Singh and others ..... Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .... Respondent 76. R. F. A No. 952 of 2001 Desa Singh ..... Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .... Respondent 77. R. F. A No. 953 of 2001 Karam Singh and another ..... Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .... Respondent 78. R. F. A No. 954 of 2001 Ujagar Singh and others ..... Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .... Respondent 79. R. F. A No. 955 of 2001 Rulia and others ..... Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh and others .... Respondents R.F.A. No. 2326 of 1998 [11] 80. R. F. A No. 1051 of 2001 Atma Singh and another ..... Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .... Respondent 81. R. F. A No. 1055 of 2001 Mohinder Singh and others ..... Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .... Respondent 82. R. F. A No. 1056 of 2001 Shamsher Singh and others ..... Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh and another ... Respondents 83. R. F. A No. 2014 of 2001 Gurnam Singh and others ..... Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .... Respondent 84. R. F. A No. 3505 of 2001 Ujagar Singh and another ..... Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. P. C. Dhiman, Advocate for the appellants in R.F.A. Nos. 1664, 1783, 1784, 1991, 2009, 2025, 2026,2034, 2097, 2279 and 2311 of 1997, 2155, 2169, 2170, 2171, 2172, 2173, 2326, 2328, 2329, 2330, 3247, 3586, 3897 and 4164 of 1998, 575, 576 and 614 of 1999 and 401, 402, 932, 949, 950, 951, 952, 953, 954, 955 and 3505 of 2001.
Mr. R. K. Dhiman, Advocate for the appellants in R.F. A. Nos. 1089, 1090 and 2218 of 1997, 411, 412, 413, 414, 1051, 1055, 1056 and 2014 of 2001.
Mr. D.S. Raghu, Advocate for the appellants in R.F.A. Nos. 2298, 2299, 2300, 2301, 2302, 2303, 2304, 2305, 2308, 2312, 2313, 2316, 2317, 2319, 2320, 2321, 2322, 2323, 2324, 2325, 2336, 2352, 2353 of 1997, 3143, 3144 and 3145 of 1998, 1701, 1702, 1703, 1704,1705, 1806, 1807, 2186 of 1999.
Ms. Lisa Gill and Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocates for Union Territory, Chandigarh.
R.F.A. No. 2326 of 1998 [12]Rajesh Bindal J.
This order will dispose of the above mentioned Regular First Appeals bearing Nos. 1089, 1090, 1664, 1783, 1784, 1991, 2009, 2025, 2026, 2034, 2097, 2218, 2279, 2298, 2299, 2300, 2301, 2302, 2303, 2304, 2305, 2308, 2311, 2312, 2313, 2316, 2317, 2319, 2320, 2321, 2322, 2323, 2324, 2325, 2336, 2352, and 2353 of 1997, 2155, 2169, 2170, 2171, 2172, 2173, 2326, 2328, 2329, 2330, 3143, 3144, 3145, 3247, 3586, 3897, and 4164 of 1998, 575, 576, 614, 1701, 1702, 1703, 1704, 1705, 1806, 1807, and 2186 of 1999, 401, 402, 411, 412, 413, 414, 932, 949, 950, 951, 952, 953, 954, 955, 1051, 1055, 1056, 2014, and 3505 of 2001, as the same arise out of the common award of learned Court below. However, the facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 2326 of 1998.
The land owners are in appeal before this Court against the award of the learned Court below passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land.
Briefly, the facts are that the land in question forming part of village Moja Jhumru (now Sectors 48 and 49 of Chandigarh) was acquired vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 11.10.1991, which was followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act on 10.1.1992. The award was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') on 8.7.1992 determining the value of the land at Rs. 1,90,000/- per acre. The learned Court below initially vide judgment dated 29.11.1996 dismissed the reference upholding the award of the Collector. Subsequently, in another reference, vide judgment dated 21.4.1998, the compensation was enhanced to Rs. 4,35,600/- per acre. Still in another reference, vide judgment dated 10.8.2000, the amount of compensation was enhanced to Rs. 5,50,000/- per acre relying upon Single Bench judgment dated 7.10.1999 of this Court, where the amount of compensation was assessed at Rs. 5,50,000/- per acre for land in the vicinity.
Initially, this bunch of appeals came up for hearing before this Court and disposed of vide judgment dated 7.10.1999 in R.F.A. No. 2169 of 1998 -Sukhpal Singh and others v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, whereby the compensation was assessed at Rs. 5,50,000/- per acre. In appeal by the land owners, a Division Bench of this Court, relying upon an earlier R.F.A. No. 2326 of 1998 [13] judgment in L.P.A. No. 58 of 2000 -Bhajan Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, decided on 25.10.2004, arising out of R.F.A. No. 2511 of 1997, remanded the cases back to the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration. This is how the matters are again before this Court.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the issue under consideration in R.F.A. No. 2511 of 1997--Bhajan Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, decided on 29.11.2006, after remand in L.P.A. No. 58 of 2000 was for determination of the value of the land acquired vide notification dated 8.7.1988. The land in question was part of Village Kajheri which was acquired for development of third phase of Chandigarh. He further submitted that in R.F.A. No. 1339 of 1996-- Bhopal Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, decided on 29.11.2006, the issue under consideration was for determination of the value of the land forming part of Village Nizampur Burail acquired vide notification dated 8.7.1988 and in R.F.A. No. 99 of 1998 -Harchal Singh and others v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, decided on 29.11.2006, the issue was regarding the valuation of land of Village Nizampur Kumra acquired vide notification dated 29.7.1988. In all the three appeals, mentioned above, this Court determined the compensation at Rs. 7,50,000/- per acre irrespective of the category of land.
Still further, reference has been made to R.F.A. No. 696 of 1998-- Joginder Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, decided on 29.11.2006, where the issue was for enhancement of compensation with regard to the land of Village Kajheri acquired vide notification dated 22.5.1992, where this Court granting annual increase @ 10% per annum on the value determined with reference to the acquisition in July, 1988 at Rs. 7,50,000/- per acre, determined the compensation at Rs. 10,12,000/- per acre.
Keeping in view the principles applied in the aforesaid judgments and the fact that the land in the present case was acquired vide notification dated 11.10.1991 for the same purpose and in the vicinity, the submission is that the appellants in the present case are also entitled to get compensation applying the same formula on the valuation already determined by this Court. Another fact which remained undisputed is that the aforesaid judgments attained finality as no appeal was preferred by the respondents against those judgments. In addition to this, reference has also R.F.A. No. 2326 of 1998 [14] been made to letter (Ex. A.3) dated 16.8.1991 written by Chandigarh Administration to Chandigarh Housing Board stating therein that the land in question, which was yet to be acquired, was allotted to Chandigarh Housing Board @ Rs. 500/- per square yard which was further directed to be allotted to the Cooperative Societies @ Rs. 750/- per square yard. Referring to this document, the submission is that even before the acquisition, the respondents knew that the value of the land is not less than Rs. 500/- per square yard , still the award was given valuing the same at Rs. 1,90,000/- per acre only. Allotment letters of the land by Chandigarh Housing Board to the various societies have also been produced in evidence.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in view of amendment in Section 23 of the Act, which is applicable to the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh, any future use of the land after the date of acquisition is not to be considered for the purpose of determination of value of the land. Further reference is made to the judgment of this Court in R.F.A. No. 409 of 1984 -- Charan Singh and another v. Union of India, decided on 1.9.2003, where the issue was for acquisition of land in Village Dadu Majra in the year 1980. Learned counsel further submitted that the land involved in the judgments, referred to by the appellants, had different potential as compared to the land under acquisition in the present case and both cannot be equated in valuation thereof.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.
The admitted facts, on record, are that in Bhajan Singh's case (supra) pertaining to the land in Village Kajheri, Bhopal Singh's case (supra) pertaining to the land forming part of Village Nizampur Burail and Harchal Singh's case (supra) pertaining to the land of Village Nizampur Kumra acquired in the month of July, 1988, this Court determined the compensation at the rate of Rs. 7,50,000/- per acre vide judgments dated 29.11.2006. The aforesaid judgments were never appealed against by the respondents. On the basis thereof for the land situated in Village Kajheri acquired vide notification dated 22.5.1992, this Court in Joginder Singh's case (supra) assessed the compensation by granting annual increase @ 10%. A perusal of the site plan shows that the land forming part of Village R.F.A. No. 2326 of 1998 [15] Jhumru (subject matter of present appeal), Nizampur Burail, Nizampur Kumra and Kajheri are in the same line which now form part of Sectors 48 to 53, Chandigarh. The acquisition is for the purpose of development of third phase in Chandigarh. The entire land has the same potential and location. Accordingly, in the matter of determination of compensation, the same cannot be differentiated as such.
For the detailed reasons stated in Bhopal Singh's case (supra), Harchal Singh's case (supra), Bhajan Singh's case (supra) and Joginder Singh's case (supra) and taking the base at Rs. 7,50,000/- per acre in July, 1988 and considering the present acquisition in October, 1991 for development of third phase of Chandigarh, in my opinion, it would be appropriate to grant increase @ 10% per annum for a period of three years and two months. The appellants shall be entitled to increase of Rs. 2,35,000/- per acre over and above Rs. 7,50,000/- per acre granted by this Court in aforesaid cases.
In view of my above discussion, the appellants are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 9,85,000/- per acre . They shall also be entitled to all other statutory benefits available to them under the Act.
Accordingly, the appeals are allowed with costs throughout.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge September 03, 2008 mk