RFA-86-2000 (O&M) connected cases & Ors. v. HARKESH MANUJA

Ms. Ekta Thakur, Advocate and Ms. Ekta Thakur, Advocate and Ms. Kulwinder Kaur, Advocate for the Ms. Kulwinder Kaur, Advocate for the appellant(s). Mr. Sanjiv Ghai, Advocate with Mr. Sanjiv Ghai, Advocate with Mr. Manpreet Singh, Advocate for the Mr. Manpreet Singh, Advocate for the Mr. Manpreet Singh, Advocate for the respondent-U.T. Chandigarh. respondent HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) HARKESH MANUJA **** Vide this common order, a batch of 5 appeals shall stand Vide this common order, a batch of 5 appeals shall stand Vide this common order, a batch of 5 appeals shall stand Vide this common order, a batch of 5 appeals shall stand disposed of, details whereof are mentioned in the footnote of the disposed of, details whereof are mentioned in the footnote of the disposed of, details whereof are mentioned in the footnote of the disposed of, details whereof are mentioned in the footnote of the judgment. For convenience, the facts are drawn from RFA-86-2000. judgment. For convenience, the facts are drawn from RFA judgment. For convenience, the facts are drawn from RFA

2. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the passed by the learned Additional District judgment dated 04.10.1999 passed by the learned Additional District passed by the learned Additional District judgment dated Judge, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as to as , ‘Reference Court), ‘Reference Court) whereby the reference petition filed under Section 18 of the Land whereby the reference petition filed under Section 18 of the Land whereby the reference petition filed under Section 18 of the Land whereby the reference petition filed under Section 18 of the Land ‘the Act’) by the Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as appellant(s)-landowner(s) , seeking enhancement of compensation was landowner(s), seeking enhancement of compensation was , seeking enhancement of compensation was partly allowed.

3. Briefly stating, land measuring 0.35 acres Briefly stating, land measuring , situated within the 0.35 acres, situated within the revenue estate of Village Dhanas, Dadu Majra and Maloya, revenue estate of Village Chandigarh u Majra and Maloya, Chandigarh was acquired for the public purpose for construction was acquired for the public purpose for of 66 K.V. D/C construction of 66 K.V. D/C Mohali-Chandigarh, Sector 12 line Chandigarh, Sector 12 line vide notifications dated

18.04.1994 vide notifications dated 18.04.1994 issued under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Act. and 17.01.1995 issued under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Act. issued under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Act. and 17.01.1995 TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.02.11 13:55 I agree to specified portions of this document 2 RFA-86-2000 (O&M) and other connected cases The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘LAC’) vide award dated

29.09.1997 assessed the market value at the rate of Rs.1,85,140/- per acre for village Maloya, Rs.2,04,880/- per acre for village Dadu Majra and Rs.1,13,333/- per acre for village Dhanas along with other statutory benefits under the Act.

4. The appellant(s)-landowner(s), feeling dissatisfied with the award, sought reference under Section 18 of the Act pleading that the price of acquired land was not less than Rs.5,00,000/- per acre.

5. Upon notice, the same was contested by the respondent- State by filing a written statement wherein it was contended that the market value assessed by the LAC was correct and thus, no interference was called for with the same.

6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by learned Reference Court:- “1. As to what was the market value at the time of notification under Section 4? OPP

2. Relief.”

7. After considering the evidence, the learned Reference Court, vide award dated 04.10.1999 enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.4,84,000/- per acre.

8. Aggrieved of the aforesaid decision dated 04.10.1999 of the learned Reference Court, the appellant(s)-landowner(s) filed the present appeal(s).

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant(s)-landowner(s). TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.02.11 13:55 I agree to specified portions of this document 3 RFA-86-2000 (O&M) and other connected cases

10. In the present case, the acquisition in hand commenced vide notification dated 18.04.1994 issued under Section 4 of the Act followed by notification dated 17.01.1995 issued under Section 6 thereof. Award under Section 11 was passed by the LAC on 29.09.1997 and the acquisition was carried for the public purpose of construction of 66 K.V. D/C Mohali-Chandigarh, Sector 12 line. The total acquired was 0.35 acres falling in three revenue estates of villages Dhanas, Maloya and Dadu Majra, UT Chandigarh. A perusal of the record shows that the learned Reference Court placed reliance upon its previous judgment dated 06.12.1997 whereby, the market value for the revenue estate of village Kajheri, UT Chandigarh was assessed at Rs.4,35,600/- per acre in terms of notification dated 22.05.1992 issued under Section 4 of the Act. Further the Learned Reference Court also recorded that the revenue estate of villages Kajheri, Maloya and Dadu Majra besides few other villages were to be treated on parity insofar their potentiality was concerned. Therefore, the learned Reference Court relying upon the previous award dated 06.12.1997 (Ex.P-13), assessed the market value @ Rs.4,84,000/- per acre with respect to the present acquisition which was notified on 18.04.1994. As a matter of record, the respondent-State has neither assailed the reliance placed upon by the learned Reference Court on the previous award dated 06.12.1997 (Ex.P-13) nor has preferred any cross-appeal or cross-objections.

11. Furthermore, as submitted by learned counsel for the appellant(s)-landowner(s), it has come on record that the award dated

06.12.1997 (Ex.P-13) was assailed before this Court and the market value stands enhanced to Rs.10.12,000/- vide decision dated 29.11.2006 TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.02.11 13:55 I agree to specified portions of this document 4 RFA-86-2000 (O&M) and other connected cases passed in RFA No.696 of 1998 titled as “Joginder Singh Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh.” Based thereupon and applying the principle of parity, besides grant of just and fair compensation, the appellant(s)- landowners being similarly situated are held to grant of similar amount of compensation. However, it may also be noticed here that the award dated 06.12.1997 (Ex.P-13) pertains to acquisition which commenced vide notification dated 22.05.1992 whereas, in the present case(s), the notification under Section 4 was issued on 18.12.1994, as such, the appellant(s)-landowners are required to be awarded appreciation @12% per annum for the time gap between the two notifications i.e. from

22.05.1992 to 18.04.1994. Accordingly, the market value per acre for the acquired land from the date of notification under Section 4 comes to Rs.12,44,760/-. It may also be noticed here that all the three revenue estates namely, Maloya, Dadu Majra and Dhanas wherever acquisition in hand has been carried out are located in close proximity, on the outskirts of UT Chandigarh. Moreover, the total land acquired is a small contiguous parcel of 0.35 acres, as such, it would be justified to award market value at uniform rate of Rs.12,44,760/- per acre in favour of appellant(s)-landowner(s).

12. Besides it, the landowner(s)-appellant(s) shall also be entitled for all the statutory benefits and interest, especially the interest on solatium.

13. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the present appeal(s) are allowed with the aforesaid modification.

14. Wherever the landowner(s) has/have unfortunately expired in the appeal(s)/cross-objection(s) after filing thereof and the legal heirs TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.02.11 13:55 I agree to specified portions of this document 5 RFA-86-2000 (O&M) and other connected cases have not been impleaded, they shall be at liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving appropriate applications before the learned Executing Court.

15. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

04.02.2026 Tejwinder (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable Yes/No Yes/No Other connected RFA-87-2000 RFA-88-2000 RFA-89-2000 RFA-90-2000 TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.02.11 13:55 I agree to specified portions of this document