Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 9, Cited by 14]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Union Territory vs Prabhjot Singh on 26 March, 2009

Author: Rajesh Bindal

Bench: Rajesh Bindal

RFA No. 2632 of 2005                               [1]

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH


                                  Date of decision: March 26, 2009

1      R.F.A. No. 2632 of 2005

       Union Territory, Chandigarh                         .. Appellant
             Vs.

        Prabhjot Singh                                     .. Respondent

2. R.F.A. No. 1525 of 2005 Dalbir Singh .. Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent

3. R.F.A. No. 1526 of 2005 Dayal Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh and others .. Respondents

4. R.F.A. No. 1627 of 2005 Kesar Singh and another .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 5. R.F.A. No. 1639 of 2005 Nasib Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 6. R.F.A. No. 1702 of 2005 Amarjit Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 7. R.F.A. No. 1703 of 2005 Nasib Singh and another .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 8. R.F.A. No. 1704 of 2005 Smt. Swarni and another .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent RFA No. 2632 of 2005 [2] 9. R.F.A. No. 1705 of 2005 Sucha Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 10. R.F.A. No. 1706 of 2005 Amarjit Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 11. R.F.A. No. 1707 of 2005 Inderjit Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 12. R.F.A. No. 1708 of 2005 Harnek Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 13. R.F.A. No. 1709 of 2005 Chasham Pal Singh Nain and another .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 14. R.F.A. No. 1710 of 2005 Amarjit Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 15. R.F.A. No. 1711 of 2005 Amarjit Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 16. R.F.A. No. 1712 of 2005 Lakhmir Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 17. R.F.A. No. 1721 of 2005 Deep Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent RFA No. 2632 of 2005 [3] 18. R.F.A. No. 1737 of 2005 Hareep Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 19. R.F.A. No. 1738 of 2005 Karam Chand and another .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 20. R.F.A. No. 1739 of 2005 Hardeep Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 21. R.F.A. No. 1793 of 2005 Prabhjot Singh (deceased) through LRs .. Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 22. R.F.A. No. 1794 of 2005 Balwinder Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 23. R.F.A. No. 1795 of 2005 Nandu .. Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 24. R.F.A. No. 1796 of 2005 Ujjagar Singh .. Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 25. R.F.A. No. 1797 of 2005 Sardara Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 26. R.F.A. No. 1798 of 2005 Sardara Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent RFA No. 2632 of 2005 [4] 27. R.F.A. No. 1799 of 2005 Sardara Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 28. R.F.A. No. 1800 of 2005 Rajbir Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 29. R.F.A. No. 1801 of 2005 Sampuran Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 30. R.F.A. No. 1802 of 2005 Surinder Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 31. R.F.A. No. 1803 of 2005 Hakam Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 32. R.F.A. No. 1804 of 2005 Hakam Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 33. R.F.A. No. 1805 of 2005 Pritpal Singh Thapar and another .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 34. R.F.A. No. 1806 of 2005 Pritpal Singh Thapar .. Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 35. R.F.A. No. 1807 of 2005 Ram Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent RFA No. 2632 of 2005 [5] 36. R.F.A. No. 1808 of 2005 Karam Chand .. Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 37. R.F.A. No. 1809 of 2005 Joginder Singh .. Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 38. R.F.A. No. 1810 of 2005 Joginder Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 39. R.F.A. No. 1811 of 2005 Joginder Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 40. R.F.A. No. 1812 of 2005 Surjan Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 41. R.F.A. No. 1813 of 2005 Surjan Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 42. R.F.A. No. 1814 of 2005 Sadhu Singh .. Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 43. R.F.A. No. 2005 of 2005 Labh Singh .. Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 44. R.F.A. No. 2037 of 2005 Lakhmir Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent RFA No. 2632 of 2005 [6] 45. R.F.A. No. 2038 of 2005 Lakhmir Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 46. R.F.A. No. 2073 of 2005 Mohinder Singh .. Appellant vs Chandigarh Administration and others .. Respondent 47. R.F.A. No. 2116 of 2005 Sardara Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 48. R.F.A. No. 2208 of 2005 Karam Chand .. Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 49. R.F.A. No. 2212 of 2005 Sardara Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 50. R.F.A. No. 2214 of 2005 Surinder Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 51. R.F.A. No. 2215 of 2005 Lekh Ram and another .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh and another .. Respondents 52. R.F.A. No. 2216 of 2005 Jasvir Singh and another .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh and others .. Respondents 53. R.F.A. No. 2217 of 2005 Lekh Ram and another .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh and another .. Respondents RFA No. 2632 of 2005 [7] 54. R.F.A. No. 2218 of 2005 Ram Lubhaya .. Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 55. R.F.A. No. 2251 of 2005 Greeb Singh (deceased) through LRs .. Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 56. R.F.A. No. 2252 of 2005 Mohan Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 57. R.F.A. No. 2253 of 2005 Arjun Singh (deceased) through LRs and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 58. R.F.A. No. 2254 of 2005 Gurcharan Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 59. R.F.A. No. 2255 of 2005 Surjan Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 60. R.F.A. No. 2256 of 2005 Balwinder Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 61. R.F.A. No. 2257 of 2005 Sardara Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 62. R.F.A. No. 2258 of 2005 Bhupinder Nath and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent RFA No. 2632 of 2005 [8] 63. R.F.A. No. 2259 of 2005 Rajbir Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 64. R.F.A. No. 2260 of 2005 Balwinder Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 65. R.F.A. No. 2261 of 2005 Sardara Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 66. R.F.A. No. 2286 of 2005 Gurdev Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory of Chandigarh .. Respondent 67. R.F.A. No. 2287 of 2005 Bhag Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 68. R.F.A. No. 2471 of 2005 Ajmer Singh (deceased) through LR and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 69. R.F.A. No. 2472 of 2005 Surinder Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 70. R.F.A. No. 2473 of 2005 Mohan Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 71. R.F.A. No. 2510 of 2005 Sarwan Singh .. Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent RFA No. 2632 of 2005 [9] 72. R.F.A. No. 2511 of 2005 Lekh Ram .. Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 73. R.F.A. No. 3556 of 2008 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Ramesh Chand Jain .. Respondent 74. R.F.A. No. 2633 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Dalbir Singh .. Respondent 75. R.F.A. No. 2634 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Hardeep Singh and others .. Respondents 76. R.F.A. No. 2635 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Dayal Singh and others .. Respondents 77. R.F.A. No. 2636 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Sucha Singh and others .. Respondents 78. R.F.A. No. 2637 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Ajmer Singh and others .. Respondents 79. R.F.A. No. 2638 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Shanti Devi and another .. Respondents 80. R.F.A. No. 2639 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Mohan Singh and others .. Respondents RFA No. 2632 of 2005 [10] 81. R.F.A. No. 2640 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Deep Singh and others .. Respondents 82. R.F.A. No. 2641 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Karam Chand .. Respondent 83. R.F.A. No. 2642 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Hakam Singh and others .. Respondents 84. R.F.A. No. 2643 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Lekh Ram .. Respondent 85. R.F.A. No. 2644 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Gurdev Singh and others .. Respondents 86. R.F.A. No. 2645 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Ajmer Singh and others .. Respondents 87. R.F.A. No. 2646 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Sampuran Singh and others .. Respondents 88. R.F.A. No. 2647 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Balwinder Singh and others .. Respondents 89. R.F.A. No. 2648 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Ram Lubhaya .. Respondent RFA No. 2632 of 2005 [11] 90. R.F.A. No. 2649 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Bhupinder Nath and others .. Respondents 91. R.F.A. No. 2650 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Lekh Ram and others .. Respondents 92. R.F.A. No. 2651 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Chasham Pal Singh Nain and another .. Respondents 93. R.F.A. No. 2652 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Pritpal Singh Thapar and another .. Respondents 94. R.F.A. No. 2653 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Amarjit Singh and others .. Respondents 95. R.F.A. No. 2654 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Ajmer Singh and others .. Respondents 96. R.F.A. No. 2655 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Sucha Singh and others .. Respondents 97. R.F.A. No. 2656 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Smt. Swarni and another .. Respondents 98. R.F.A. No. 2657 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Bhag Singh and others .. Respondents RFA No. 2632 of 2005 [12] 99. R.F.A. No. 2658 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Karam Chand and another .. Respondents 100. R.F.A. No. 2659 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Arjun Singh and others .. Respondents 101. R.F.A. No. 2660 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Nandu .. Respondent 102. R.F.A. No. 2661 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Sardara Singh and others .. Respondents 103. R.F.A. No. 2662 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Greeb Singh .. Respondent 104. R.F.A. No. 2663 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Karam Chand .. Respondent 105. R.F.A. No. 2664 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Parvesh Inder Singh .. Respondent 106. R.F.A. No. 2665 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Balwinder Singh and others .. Respondents 107. R.F.A. No. 2666 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Lakhmir Singh and others .. Respondents RFA No. 2632 of 2005 [13] 108. R.F.A. No. 2667 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Inderjit Singh and others .. Respondents 109. R.F.A. No. 2668 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Lekh Ram and others .. Respondents 110. R.F.A. No. 2669 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Hakam Singh and others .. Respondents 111. R.F.A. No. 2670 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Pritpal Singh Thapar .. Respondent 112. R.F.A. No. 2671 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Ram Singh and others .. Respondents 113. R.F.A. No. 2672 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Nasib Singh and another .. Respondents 114. R.F.A. No. 2673 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Bimal Parkash .. Respondent 115. R.F.A. No. 2674 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Joginder Singh and others .. Respondents 116. R.F.A. No. 2675 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Hardeep Singh and others .. Respondents RFA No. 2632 of 2005 [14] 117. R.F.A. No. 2676 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Mohan Singh and others .. Respondents 118. R.F.A. No. 2677 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Ajmer Singh .. Respondent 119. R.F.A. No. 2678 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Harnek Singh and others .. Respondents 120. R.F.A. No. 2679 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Surinder Singh and others .. Respondents 121. R.F.A. No. 2680 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Joginder Singh .. Respondent 122. R.F.A. No. 2681 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Surjan Singh and others .. Respondents 123. R.F.A. No. 2682 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Mohinder Singh .. Respondent 124. R.F.A. No. 2683 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Surjan Singh and others .. Respondents

125. R.F.A. No. 2684 of 2005 and Cross Objections No. 11-CI of 2008 Union Territory, Chandigarh and others .. Appellants vs Amarjit Kaur and another .. Respondents RFA No. 2632 of 2005 [15] 126. R.F.A. No. 2685 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Amarjit Singh and others .. Respondents 127. R.F.A. No. 2686 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Shanti Devi and another .. Respondents 128. R.F.A. No. 2687 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Sardara Singh and others .. Respondents 129. R.F.A. No. 2688 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Gurcharan Singh and others .. Respondents 130. R.F.A. No. 2689 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Amarjit Singh and others .. Respondents 131. R.F.A. No. 2690 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Sardara Singh and others .. Respondents 132. R.F.A. No. 2691 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Labh Singh .. Respondent 133. R.F.A. No. 2692 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Surjan Singh and others .. Respondents 134. R.F.A. No. 2693 of 2005 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Sardara Singh and others .. Respondents RFA No. 2632 of 2005 [16] 135. R.F.A. No. 2796 of 2005 Gurcharan Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 136. R.F.A. No. 2272 of 2006 Nasib Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 137. R.F.A. No. 2273 of 2006 Ajaib Singh and another .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 138. R.F.A. No. 2274 of 2006 Daljit Singh and another .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 139. R.F.A. No. 2275 of 2006 Harpreet Singh .. Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 140. R.F.A. No. 2398 of 2006 Gurjit Singh .. Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 141. R.F.A. No. 2399 of 2006 Amarjit Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 142. R.F.A. No. 2400 of 2006 Harbans Singh and another .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 143. R.F.A. No. 2401 of 2006 Laik Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent RFA No. 2632 of 2005 [17] 144. R.F.A. No. 2402 of 2006 Balbir Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 145. R.F.A. No. 2415 of 2006 Sardara Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 146. R.F.A. No. 2632 of 2006 Dev Kumar and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 147. R.F.A. No. 3241 of 2006 Gurdev Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 148. R.F.A. No. 4058 of 2006 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Jit Singh and others .. Respondents 149. R.F.A. No. 4059 of 2006 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Dev Kumar and others .. Respondents 150. R.F.A. No. 4060 of 2006 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Gurjit Singh .. Respondent 151. R.F.A. No. 4061 of 2006 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Harpreet Singh .. Respondent 152. R.F.A. No. 4062 of 2006 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Balbir Singh and others .. Respondents RFA No. 2632 of 2005 [18] 153. R.F.A. No. 4063 of 2006 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Harbans Singh and another .. Respondents 154. R.F.A. No. 4064 of 2006 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Nasib Singh and others .. Respondents 155. R.F.A. No. 4065 of 2006 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Sardara Singh and others .. Respondents 156. R.F.A. No. 4066 of 2006 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Daljit Singh and another .. Respondents 157. R.F.A. No. 4067 of 2006 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Amarjit Singh and others .. Respondents 158. R.F.A. No. 4068 of 2006 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Ajaib Singh and another .. Respondents 159. R.F.A. No. 4355 of 2006 Sucha Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 160. R.F.A. No. 4447 of 2006 Surmukh Singh and another .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 161. R.F.A. No. 4465 of 2006 Gurjit Singh .. Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent RFA No. 2632 of 2005 [19] 162. R.F.A. No. 4704 of 2006 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Gurjit Singh .. Respondent 163. R.F.A. No. 4705 of 2006 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Surmukh Singh and another .. Respondents 164. R.F.A. No. 4706 of 2006 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Sucha Singh and others .. Respondents 165. R.F.A. No. 1058 of 2007 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Jumla Malkan Raqsab Hassab Zar Khewat and Hasab Rasad Khewat .. Respondent 166. R.F.A. No. 1523 of 2007 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Kamal Jatinder Singh .. Respondent 167. R.F.A. No. 1524 of 2007 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Ram Lubhaya .. Respondent 168. R.F.A. No. 1525 of 2007 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Surjit Kaur and another .. Respondents 169. R.F.A. No. 1526 of 2007 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Ravi Nandan and others .. Respondents 170. R.F.A. No. 2001 of 2007 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Hemant Kumari Sharma and others .. Respondents RFA No. 2632 of 2005 [20] 171. R.F.A. No. 2002 of 2007 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Deep Singh and others .. Respondents 172. R.F.A. No. 2003 of 2007 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Sarita Chaudhary .. Respondent 173. R.F.A. No. 2004 of 2007 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Smt. Saroj Rani .. Respondent 174. R.F.A. No. 2005 of 2007 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Daulat Kaur and others .. Respondents 175. R.F.A. No. 2006 of 2007 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Amar Singh and others .. Respondents 176. R.F.A. No. 2007 of 2007 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Jagdish .. Respondent 177. R.F.A. No. 2008 of 2007 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Anil Kumar and others .. Respondents 178. R.F.A. No. 2009 of 2007 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Avtar Singh and another .. Respondents 179. R.F.A. No. 2010 of 2007 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Premayukat .. Respondent RFA No. 2632 of 2005 [21] 180. R.F.A. No. 2011 of 2007 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Dharamvir Narad .. Respondent 181. R.F.A. No. 2012 of 2007 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Ram Sarup .. Respondent 182. R.F.A. No. 2013 of 2007 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Raghbur Dass alias Raghbar Dayal .. Respondent 183. R.F.A. No. 2014 of 2007 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Malkit Kaur .. Respondent 184. R.F.A. No. 2247 of 2007 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Ramesh Kumar .. Respondent 185. R.F.A. No. 2248 of 2007 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Rajesh Kumar and another .. Respondents 186. R.F.A. No. 2249 of 2007 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Madan Mohan .. Respondent 187. R.F.A. No. 2265 of 2007 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Jagjiwan Kumar and another .. Respondents 188. R.F.A. No. 2266 of 2007 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Jumla Malkan .. Respondent RFA No. 2632 of 2005 [22] 189. R.F.A. No. 2294 of 2007 Dharamvir Narad .. Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 190. R.F.A. No. 2295 of 2007 Naresh Kumar Sharma and another .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 191. R.F.A. No. 2296 of 2007 Anil Kumar and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 192. R.F.A. No. 2297 of 2007 Amar Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 193. R.F.A. No. 2298 of 2007 Avtar Singh and another .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 194. R.F.A. No. 2299 of 2007 Smt. Saroj Rani .. Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 195. R.F.A. No. 2300 of 2007 Malkit Kaur .. Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 196. R.F.A. No. 2301 of 2007 Madan Mohan .. Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 197. R.F.A. No. 2302 of 2007 Jagdish .. Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent RFA No. 2632 of 2005 [23] 198. R.F.A. No. 2303 of 2007 Anil Kumar and another .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 199. R.F.A. No. 2304 of 2007 Jumla Malkan .. Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 200. R.F.A. No. 2305 of 2007 Rajesh Kumar and another .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 201. R.F.A. No. 2306 of 2007 Ramesh Kumar .. Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 202. R.F.A. No. 2307 of 2007 Krishan Kumar and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 203. R.F.A. No. 2405 of 2007 Raghbur Dass alias Raghbar Dayal .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 204. R.F.A. No. 2406 of 2007 Premayukat .. Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 205. R.F.A. No. 2555 of 2007 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Labh Singh .. Respondent 206. R.F.A. No. 2556 of 2007 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Hari Kishan .. Respondent RFA No. 2632 of 2005 [24] 207. R.F.A. No. 2557 of 2007 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Smt. Surinder Kaur and another .. Respondents 208. R.F.A. No. 2821 of 2007 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Shamlat Deh .. Respondent 209. R.F.A. No. 2839 of 2007 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Anil Kumar and another .. Respondents 210. R.F.A. No. 3187 of 2007 Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Appellant vs Om Parkash .. Respondent 211. R.F.A. No. 3909 of 2007 Shamlat Deh .. Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh and others .. Respondents 212. R.F.A. No. 4534 of 2007 Jagjiwan Kumar and another .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 213. R.F.A. No. 4535 of 2007 Angrej Kaur and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 214. R.F.A. No. 312 of 2008 Karam Singh .. Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 215. R.F.A. No. 313 of 2008 Kartar Singh and another .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent RFA No. 2632 of 2005 [25] 216. R.F.A. No. 314 of 2008 Balwant Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 217. R.F.A. No. 315 of 2008 Surjan Singh and another .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 218. R.F.A. No. 316 of 2008 Jaswinder Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 219. R.F.A. No. 317 of 2008 Mastan Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 220. R.F.A. No. 318 of 2008 Karam Singh .. Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 221. R.F.A. No. 319 of 2008 Surjan Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 222. R.F.A. No. 320 of 2008 Surjan Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 223. R.F.A. No. 321 of 2008 Karam Singh .. Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 224. R.F.A. No. 322 of 2008 Balbir Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent RFA No. 2632 of 2005 [26] 225. R.F.A. No. 323 of 2008 Kaka Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 226. R.F.A. No. 324 of 2008 Kaka Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 227. R.F.A. No. 325 of 2008 Baldev Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 228. R.F.A. No. 326 of 2008 Baldev Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 229. R.F.A. No. 327 of 2008 Baldev Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 230. R.F.A. No. 328 of 2008 Nirmal Singh .. Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 231. R.F.A. No. 329 of 2008 Surjan Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 232. R.F.A. No. 330 of 2008 Daulat Kaur and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 233. R.F.A. No. 331 of 2008 Angrej Singh .. Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent RFA No. 2632 of 2005 [27] 234. R.F.A. No. 332 of 2008 Shyam Singh .. Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 235. R.F.A. No. 333 of 2008 Hari Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 236. R.F.A. No. 334 of 2008 Amrik Singh and another .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 237. R.F.A. No. 335 of 2008 Surinder Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 238. R.F.A. No. 336 of 2008 Baldev Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 239. R.F.A. No. 337 of 2008 Labh Singh .. Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 240. R.F.A. No. 338 of 2008 Bawa Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 241. R.F.A. No. 339 of 2008 Labh Singh .. Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 242. R.F.A. No. 340 of 2008 Nirmal Singh .. Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent RFA No. 2632 of 2005 [28] 243. R.F.A. No. 341 of 2008 Nirmal Singh .. Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 244. R.F.A. No. 342 of 2008 Kaka Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 245. R.F.A. No. 343 of 2008 Karam Singh .. Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 246. R.F.A. No. 344 of 2008 Balwant Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 247. R.F.A. No. 345 of 2008 Hari Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 248. R.F.A. No. 346 of 2008 Kaur Chand and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 249. R.F.A. No. 347 of 2008 Amarjit Kaur .. Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 250. R.F.A. No. 348 of 2008 Avtar Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 251. R.F.A. No. 349 of 2008 Piara Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent RFA No. 2632 of 2005 [29] 252. R.F.A. No. 350 of 2008 Piara Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 253. R.F.A. No. 351 of 2008 Garib Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 254. R.F.A. No. 352 of 2008 Garib Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 255. R.F.A. No. 353 of 2008 Piara Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 256. R.F.A. No. 354 of 2008 Piara Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 257. R.F.A. No. 355 of 2008 Piara Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 258. R.F.A. No. 404 of 2008 Mohinder Singh and another .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 259. R.F.A. No. 709 of 2008 Bhag Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent 260. R.F.A. No. 710 of 2008 Bhag Singh and others .. Appellants vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent RFA No. 2632 of 2005 [30] 261. R.F.A. No. 2009 of 2008 Sarita Chaudhary .. Appellant vs Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. G. S. Punia, Mr. Hardip Singh, Mr. R. K. Dhiman, Mr. P. C. Dhiman and Ms. Ekta Thakur, Advocates for the land owners.

Mr. Sanjiv Ghai, Mr. Deepak Sharma, Mr. Vikas Suri, Mr. Rajiv Kumar Saini, Ms. Lisa Gill and Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocates for Union Territory, Chandigarh.

Rajesh Bindal J.

This order will dispose of a bunch of 261 appeals, as common questions of law and facts are involved.

R.F.A. Nos. 1525, 1526, 1627, 1639, 1702 to 1712, 1721, 1737 to 1739, 1793 to 1814, 2005, 2037, 2038, 2073, 2116, 2208, 2212, 2214 to 2218, 2251 to 2261, 2286, 2287, 2471 to 2473, 2510, 2511, 2796 of 2005, 2272 to 2275, 2298 to 2402, 2415, 2632, 3241, 4355, 4447, 4465 of 2006, 2294 to 2307, 2405, 2406, 3909, 4534, 4535 of 2007, 312 to 355, 404, 709, 710, 2009 of 2008 have been filed by the land owners seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land.

R.F.A. Nos. 2632 to 2693 of 2005, 4058 to 4068, 4704 to 4706 of 2006, 1058, 1523 to 1526, 2001 to 2014, 2247 to 2249, 2265, 2266, 2555 to 2557, 2821, 2839, 3187 of 2007 and 3556 of 2008 have been filed by Union Territory, Chandigarh seeking reduction of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned court below.

In R.F.A. No. 2684 of 2005 the land owners have filed cross objections seeking further enhancement of compensation.

The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 2632 of 2005. Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 14.61 acres, situated in village Lahora, U.T., Chandigarh was acquired vide notification dated 23.12.1999 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for setting up Chandigarh Botanical Garden. The same was followed by notification dated 14.3.2000, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') gave award of Rs. 5,43,636/- per acre.

RFA No. 2632 of 2005 [31]

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 @ Rs. 15,50,000/- per acre.

Vide another notification dated 1.1.2001, issued under Section 4 of the Act, land measuring 184.88 acres, situated in village Sarangpur, U.T., Chandigarh was acquired for development of complex for important projects in village Sarangpur, U.T., Chandigarh. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') gave award of Rs. 9,70,890/- per acre for all kinds of land except Gair Mumkin Nadi, Nala, River Bed, Choe and Khadaan etc. 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 @ Rs. 17,20,500/- per acre.

The learned Reference Court firstly assessed the compensation for the land aquired vide notification dated 1.1.2001 and on the basis thereof, for the acquisition, which was carried out vide notification dated 23.12.1999, a cut of 12% was made, considering the time gap in the notifications for the reason that both the chunks of land were located close to each other in the same area.

Considering the aforesaid facts, learned counsel for the land owners also addressed arguments in the appeals relating to acquisition vide notification dated 1.1.2001. Site plan on record was referred to show the location of the land, which is located on the road leading from PGI/University towards Mullanpur. The land was acquired for the purpose of development of complex for important projects in village Sarangpur, U.T., Chandigarh. Reference was made to two sale deeds (Ex. P23 and Ex. P24) to submit that assessment of the value of the land by the learned court below is not in consonance thereof. The learned court below should have relied upon the sale deeds pertaining to the land in the area in preference to the award relied upon. If the value of the land shown in the sale deeds is considered, the value, as assessed by the learned court below, certainly deserves enhancement for the reason that the area dealt with therein was not small as it was 3 kanals in sale deed (Ex. P23) and 4 kanals and 7 marlas in sale deed (Ex. P24). Both the chunks of land were not located on the road. It was further submitted that the land being part of an area, which is regulated with regard to construction activity under law, no cut was required to be applied on the value shown in the sale deeds. Reliance was placed upon Khushi Ram and another v. The State of Haryana through Secretary to Govt. Haryana, Industries Department RFA No. 2632 of 2005 [32] and another, 1988 LACC 653; Aruna Trust, Madhuban, Karnal through Smt. Shiela Kapur v. State of Haryana through Collector Karnal and another, (1989-2) 96 PLR 353 and Harbans Singh and others v. State of Punjab through the Land Acquisition Collector, Patiala, 2006(3) All India Land Laws Reporter 274.

Without prejudice to the submissions made above, it was submitted that even if the value of the land, as assessed by the learned court below on the basis of the earlier award, as has been relied upon is found to be correct, the land owners are entitled to further enhancement for the reason that this Court against the award, which has been relied upon, had further enhanced the compensation from Rs. 13,44,000/- per acre to Rs. 17,32,000/- per acre vide judgment dated 10.2.2009 in R.F.A. No. 3921 of 2007 -Arunash Chander Kaushik and others v. Union Territory, Chandigarh. It was further submitted that in the aforesaid judgment, the land was acquired in 1998. Considering the fact that acquisition in the present case was later in time, the land owners should be granted increase for the time gap.

It was further submitted that almost the entire land in Chandigarh had already been developed after acquisition and this was the only area which was left out . The acquisition for the purpose of development in this area started with the issuance of notification dated 23.12.1999 and thereafter, number of notifications were issued acquiring the land for various important projects, such as film city, education city etc. The land had great potential, considering the strategic location of the city and the kind of infrastructure being created. Even for the purpose of tourism also, the same is on world map.

In fact, the Administration is not dealing with the land owners fairly. The land is acquired after paying very small amount of compensation which is transferred to other authorities/persons at exhorbitant prices without even development. The object of the Land Acquisition Act or any authority acquiring land therein in a welfare State is not to make profit out of acquisition of land. In the periphery of Chandigarh, because of restriction imposed in view of the Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952, no construction activity is permissible, which has the result of pegging down the prices, as the land owners do not get the price, as it would have fetched if the construction activity is permitted thereon, as merely for agricultural land, the price, which a land having urban potential can fetch, is never paid. It was further submitted that the value of the land in the area, which falls in Punjab, adjoining Union Territory, Chandigarh, where there is no such restriction of construction, the value was much more than what has been assessed by the learned court below, though it is at more distance RFA No. 2632 of 2005 [33] from Chandigarh as compared to the acquired land.

Additional argument was raised in the cases pertaining to the acquisition vide notification dated 23.12.1999 to submit that the learned court below had failed to consider sale deed (Ex. P12), which was registered after the judgment and decree of the court enforcing an agreement to sell entered into between the parties much prior to the date of acquisition. It was for a plot of 1-1/2 marlas of land situated in village Lahora sold for a consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The average value thereof comes out to Rs. 2,13,00,000/- per acre. The acquired land was merely one furlong from there. Even if a cut of 30% is applied, the value of the acquired land would come out much more than what has been assessed. Reliance was also placed on agreement to sell dated 19.3.1999 (Ex. P25), whereby 1-1/2 marlas of land was agreed to be sold for a total consideration of Rs. 3,50,000/- and earnest money of Rs. 1,25,000/- was paid. Still further, it was submitted that even if the award pertaining to acquisition of land vide notification dated 1.1.2001 is relied upon for the purpose of assessment of fair value of the land acquired vide notification dated 23.12.1999, the cut should not be more than 10% as against 12% applied by the learned court below.

In addition to this, learned counsel also claimed damages on account of severance stating that with the acquisition of front portion of land along with the passage connecting the land with the road, the rear portion which was left out of acquisition had become totally useless and unapproachable on account of which the land owners suffered damages for which they deserve to be compensated. The claim of damages to the extent of 50% of the value of the land was made for the land which remained unacquied and became useless. Reliance was placed upon Punjab State through Acquisition Collector v. Gurcharan Singh, 1989 LACC 243 and Smt. Bindu Garg v. State of Haryana, 1999(1) LACC 487.

In response to the contentions raised by learned counsel for the land owners, learned counsel for Union Territory, Chandigarh submitted that the land pertaining to the sale deeds, which are sought to be relied upon by the land owners, have not been located on any site plan produced on record. The aks shijra, which has been produced at the time of arguments to show location of the land pertaining to the sale deeds, keeping in view the khasra numbers dealt with therein, should not be relied upon as sale deed (Ex. P24) was registered after the acquisition of land in the year 1999, while sale deed (Ex. P23) was registered just few days prior thereto. The same was registered just with a view to jack up the prices to claim higher compensation. The learned court blow had not committed any illegality in not placing reliance upon the aforesaid sale deeds.

RFA No. 2632 of 2005 [34]

Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, it was submitted that even if those sale deeds are relied upon, considering the fact that the acquisition was for large chunk of land, a reasonable cut was required to be applied as the area was totally undeveloped and was being put to agriculture use only at the time of acquisition. Reliance was placed upon Land Acquisition Officer, Kammarapally village, Nizamabad District A.P. v. Nookala Rajamallu and others, (2003) 12 SCC

334. It was further submitted that reliance on the award pertaining to the acquisition of land for third phase of Chandigarh was also totally misplaced for the reason of non-comparability of both the chunks of land with regard to their location. The submission is that as the Collector was quite generous in awarding compensation to the land owners in the present case, in the absence of any evidence which could enable the court to hold that the same was not fair, the same deserved to be upheld. It was further submitted that for the area which was forming part of Khadan, the Collector had given separate award, but the learned court below had assessed the entire land at the same rate without there being any evidence on record to show that the finding recorded by the Collector to that effect was not correct.

Regarding damages on account of severance, it was submitted that positive evidence was required to be led by the land owners to claim that left out portion of the land had become totally useless, inaccessible and uncultivable, only then any damages on account of severance could be granted. In fact, the balance portion of the acquired land was also acquired vide subsequent notification issued in the year 2004 and accordingly, the land owners have not suffered as such.

No contention was raised with regard to the super structure and trees existing on the acquired land by either of the parties.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. A perusal of site plan (Ex. P5) on record shows the total area of Chandigarh Urban Complex. It shows the already urbanised area and the area which has not yet been developed. A perusal of the site plan shows that there is no scope for expansion beyond Sector 1, where capital complex is situated. Towards Mohali, the entire area has already been acquired and developed as third phase of Chandigarh. Towards Panchkula also, the entire area stands already acquired and developed into residential and commercial. Some small area is available on the road leading from Chandigarh to Ambala, though not located on the main road as such as on the main road, there are Airport, Air Force and Para-military Forces establishments. It is only the area towards the side where the present land has been acquired that large chunk of land is still available for development. Keeping an RFA No. 2632 of 2005 [35] eye thereon, the acquisition started in this area for the purpose of commercial exploitation with the issuance of notification dated 23.12.1999, which is first in the series and followed by various subsequent notifications. Prior to that, there were some small acquisitions for use of para-military forces in villages Dadu Majra and Dhanas in the year 1992 and in village Sarangpur in the year 1989.

The fact that no construction activity can be carried out in Chandigarh urban controlled area on account of restrictions imposed under the Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act1, 1952 is not disputed. Meaning thereby that any body who buys land in the periphery has to use the same only for the purpose of agriculture, though it may have commercial potential, but that can be exploited by the Administration after the acquisition of land and the same is being done. This is the beginning of acquisition of land in this area. The value which will be determined for the land acquired in the present set of cases will certainly be a guiding factor for any future acquisition in the area.

What has been found on a perusal of the evidence on record, as has been referred to at the time of arguments is that only two sale deeds were produced. The same were not located on any of the site plans produced on record. Reliance was sought to be placed upon another sale deed for a land measuring 1- 1/2 marlas which, according to the learned counsel for the land owners, was executed in terms of a decree passed in favour of the vendee therein on the basis of an agreement to sell, which was executed much prior to the acquisition of land, but judgment and decree was not produced on record. Further, though at the time of arguments it was stated that value of the land in the neighbouring area forming part of the State of Punjab was fetching much more value at that time, as compared to the value as assessed by the learned court below considering the fact that there was no restriction of construction activity, but no evidence was produced on record to substantiate the plea.

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, it is a fit case to set aside the impugned award passed by the learned court below and refer the matter back for fresh consideration by granting opportunity to both the parties to produce further evidence, if they so desire so that none of the parties suffer on account of any lapse committed earlier by not producing the evidence on record which though is stated to be relevant at the time of arguments. It is also for the reason that the land owners are being deprived of their land holdings and source of livelihood, for which they deserve to be compensated adequately keeping in view shooting land prices. Ordered accordingly.

Parties through their counsels are directed to appear before the RFA No. 2632 of 2005 [36] learned District Judge, Chandigarh on 16.5.2009 for further proceedings. The learned District Judge may either keep the references with him or entrust the same to any other Additional District Judge. It is further directed that the amount of compensation already paid to the land owners in terms of the impugned award shall not be recovered back from them. However, the same shall abide by any final order passed by the learned Reference Court afresh.

The appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated above.

(Rajesh Bindal) Judge March 26, 2009 mk