Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhagwan Dass And Another vs Union Territory Of Chandigarh on 30 January, 2009
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
R.F.A. No. 2222 of 1998 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision: January 30 , 2009
(1) R.F.A. No. 2222 of 1998 (O&M)
Bhagwan Dass and another
....Appellants
Versus
Union Territory of Chandigarh.
...Respondent
(2) R.F.A. No. 2243 of 1998 (O&M) Goverdhan Singh ....Appellant Versus Union Territory of Chandigarh ...Respondent (3) R.F.A. No. 3147 of 1998 (O&M) Gurjit Singh ....Appellant Versus Union Territory of Chandigarh ...Respondent (4) R.F.A. No. 3973 of 1998 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ....Appellant Versus Capt.Kanwarpal Singh and others ...Respondents (5) R.F.A. No. 3974 of 1998 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ....Appellant Versus Darbara Singh and others ...Respondents R.F.A. No. 2222 of 1998 [2] (6) R.F.A. No. 3975 of 1998 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ....Appellant Versus Gurjit Singh ...Respondent (7) R.F.A. No. 3976 of 1998 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ....Appellant Versus Kartar Singh and others ...Respondents (8) R.F.A. No. 3977 of 1998 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ....Appellant Versus Harinderjit Kaur and others ...Respondents (9) R.F.A. No. 3978 of 1998 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ....Appellant Versus Mrs. Poonam Duggal ...Respondent (10) R.F.A. No. 3979 of 1998 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ....Appellant Versus Sukhjit Singh and another ...Respondents (11) R.F.A. No. 3980 of 1998 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ....Appellant Versus Gurdev Singh and another ...Respondents R.F.A. No. 2222 of 1998 [3] (12) R.F.A. No. 3981 of 1998 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ....Appellant Versus Hakam Singh ...Respondent (13) R.F.A. No. 3982 of 1998 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ....Appellant Versus Shashi Prabha ...Respondent (14) R.F.A. No. 3983 of 1998 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ....Appellant Versus Bhagwan Dass and another ...Respondents (15) R.F.A. No. 3984 of 1998 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ....Appellant Versus Dayal Singh ...Respondent (16) R.F.A. No. 3985 of 1998 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandgiarh ....Appellant Versus Gursewak Singh and others ...Respondents (17) R.F.A. No. 3986 of 1998 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ....Appellant Versus Goverdhan Singh ...Respondent R.F.A. No. 2222 of 1998 [4] (18) R.F.A. No. 3987 of 1998 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ....Appellant Versus Lakhmir Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Ms. Ekta Thakur, Advocate for the appellants.
Ms. Lisa Gill and Mr. Vishal Sodhi, Advocates for Union Territory, Chandigarh Mr. R. K. Dhiman, Advocate for the respondents in R.F.A. No. 3973 of 1998.
Rajesh Bindal J.
This order will dispose of a bunch of 18 appeals, as the same arise out of one acquisition.
R.F.A. Nos. 2222, 2243 and 3147 of 1998 have been filed by the land owners seeking further enhancement of compensation.
R.F.A. Nos. 3973 to 3987 of 1998 have been filed by Union Territory seeking reduction of compensation on account of acquisition of land.
The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 2222 of 1998. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 12.10.1989, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), land measuring 21.51 acres, situated in the revenue estate of Manimajra, was acquired for development of residential-cum-commercial complex, Scheme No. 2 (Pocket No. 3), Manimajra. 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. 3,87,200/- per acre.
Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the land in question was acquired for development of Pocket No. 3 in Scheme No. 2 as residential-cum-commercial complex at Mani Majra. Prior to the acquisition in the present case, another piece of land was acquired in the vicinity vide notification R.F.A. No. 2222 of 1998 [5] issued under Section 4 of the Act on 15.6.1989, which forms part of Pocket No. 2. For the aforesaid acquisition, this Court in R.F.A. No. 2117 of 1997 -Jagir Singh v. Union Territory, decided on 15.10.2008, determined the fair value of the acquired land at Rs. 151/- per square yard. The acquisition in the present case having been made 4 months thereafter, the land owners herein 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 on the road leading from Chandigarh to Panchkula.
On the other hand, learned counsel for Union Territory submitted that in the absence of any independent evidence on record, the value of the acquired land should not be determined merely relying upon an earlier judgment, may be pertaining to the land in the vicinity. Rather, the compensation, as has already been assessed by the learned court below, deserves to be decreased considering the material produced by the land owners on record before the court below. She further submitted that the earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court in L.P.A. No. 500 of 2001 -Jasbir Kaur and another v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, decided on 23.12.2006 deserves consideration for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land in the present case.
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 12.10.1989 pertaining to the land of revenue estate of Village Mani Majra, which was acquired for development of residential-cum- commercial complex for Pocket No. 3. 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 just 4 months prior to the acquisition in question, 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.
Considering the aforesaid facts and also the fact that Jasbir Kaur's case (supra) has already been considered by this Court in Jagir Kaur's case (supra), 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 is assessed at Rs. 157/- per square yard. The land owners shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits available under the Act.
R.F.A. No. 2222 of 1998 [6]Accordingly, the appeals filed by the land owners are accepted to the extent mentioned above, whereas those filed by Union Territory are dismissed.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge 30.1.2009 mk