Narinder Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh

Smt. Rajinder Kaur Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ....Appellant ...Respondent R.F.A. No. 727 of 2001 [ 8] (42) R.F.A. No. 1324 of 2003 (O&M) Bhopal Singh and another Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ....Appellants (43) R.F.A. No. 1326 of 2003 (O&M) ...Respondent Bhopal Singh and others Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ....Appellants (44) R.F.A. No. 1327 of 2003 (O&M) ...Respondent Smt. Tajinder Kaur Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ....Appellant (45) R.F.A. No. 1328 of 2003 (O&M) ...Respondent Sarabjit Singh Versus ....Appellant Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (46) R.F.A. No. 1329 of 2003 (O&M) Chhinder Singh Versus ....Appellant Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (47) R.F.A. No. 1330 of 2003 (O&M) Kulwant Singh and another Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ....Appellants ...Respondent R.F.A. No. 727 of 2001 [ 9] (48) R.F.A. No. 1331 of 2003 (O&M) Ajay Pal Singh Versus ....Appellant Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (49) R.F.A. No.

1332 of 2003 (O&M) Bhopal Singh Versus ....Appellant Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (50) R.F.A. No. 1555 of 2003 (O&M) Surjit Singh Versus ....Appellant Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (51) R.F.A. No. 1557 of 2003 (O&M) Baldev Singh and others Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ....Appellants (52) R.F.A. No. 1582 of 2003 (O&M) ...Respondent Kuldeep Singh and others Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ....Appellants (53) R.F.A. No. 2475 of 2003 (O&M) ...Respondent Dalbir Singh and another Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ....Appellants ...Respondent R.F.A. No. 727 of 2001 [ 10] (54) R.F.A. No. 2476 of 2003 (O&M) Bhopal Singh and others Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ....Appellants (55) R.F.A. No. 2477 of 2003 (O&M) ...Respondent Bhopal Singh and others Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ....Appellants (56) R.F.A. No. 2506 of 2003 (O&M) ...Respondent Smt. Tej Kaur Versus ....Appellant Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (57) R.F.A. No.

4722 of 2003 (O&M) Kamal Atri and others Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ....Appellants (58) R.F.A. No. 4723 of 2003 (O&M) ...Respondent Smt. Sona Devi Versus ....Appellant Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (59) R.F.A. No. 4724 of 2003 (O&M) Mohan Singh Versus ....Appellant Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent R.F.A. No. 727 of 2001 [ 11] +(60) R.F.A. No. 4725 of 2003 (O&M) Prem Lata Versus ....Appellant Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (61) R.F.A. No. 4726 of 2003 (O&M) Sohan Singh Versus ....Appellant Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (62) R.F.A. No. 4727 of 2003 (O&M) Mohan Singh and another Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ....Appellants (63) R.F.A. No. 1446 of 2004 (O&M) ...Respondent Union Territory, Chandigarh ....Appellant Versus Mohan Singh (64) R.F.A. No. 1447 of 2004 (O&M) ...Respondent Union Territory, Chandigarh ....Appellant Versus Suraj Parkash and another (65) R.F.A. No.

1448 of 2004 (O&M) ...Respondents Union Territory, Chandigarh ....Appellant Versus Kuldeep Singh ...Respondent R.F.A. No. 727 of 2001 [ 12] (66) R.F.A. No. 1449 of 2004 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ....Appellant Versus Sohan Singh (67) R.F.A. No. 1450 of 2004 (O&M) ...Respondent Union Territory, Chandigarh ....Appellant Versus Charanjit Singh (68) R.F.A. No. 1451 of 2004 (O&M) ...Respondent Union Territory, Chandigarh ....Appellant Versus Baldev Singh (69) R.F.A. No. 1452 of 2004 (O&M) ...Respondent Union Territory, Chandigarh ....Appellant Versus Smt. Prem Lata (70) R.F.A. No. 1453 of 2004 (O&M) ...Respondent Union Territory, Chandigarh ....Appellant Versus Mohan Singh and another (71) R.F.A. No. 1454 of 2004 (O&M) ...Respondents Union Territory, Chandigarh ....Appellant Versus Kamal Atri and others ...Respondents R.F.A. No. 727 of 2001 [ 13] (72) R.F.A. No. 1455 of 2004 (O&M) Union Territory, Chandigarh ....Appellant Versus Smt.

Sona Devi (73) R.F.A. No. 1456 of 2004 (O&M) ...Respondent Union Territory, Chandigarh Versus Kuldeep Singh and another ....Appellant (74) R.F.A. No. 2324 of 2004 (O&M) ...Respondents Jeet Kaur and another Versus Union of India and another ....Appellants (75) R.F.A. No. 2325 of 2004 (O&M) ...Respondents Shyam Singh and others ....Appellants Versus Union of India (76) R.F.A. No. 2326 of 2004 (O&M) ...Respondent Balbir Singh and others Versus Union of India and others ....Appellants (77) R.F.A. No. 2357 of 2004 (O&M) ...Respondents Sanjeev Kumar Versus Union of India ....Appellant ...Respondent R.F.A. No. 727 of 2001 [ 14] (78) R.F.A. No. 2358 of 2004 (O&M) Narinder Singh Versus Union of India ....Appellant (79) R.F.A. No. 2359 of 2004 (O&M) ...Respondent Bikram Singh Versus Union of India ....Appellant (70) R.F.A. No. 2360 of 2004 (O&M) ...Respondent Narinder Singh and another ....Appellants Versus Union of India (81) R.F.A. No.

2361 of 2004 (O&M) ...Respondent Rajinder Singh Versus Union of India ....Appellant (82) R.F.A. No. 2362 of 2004 (O&M) ...Respondent Gurdip Singh Versus Union of India ....Appellant (83) R.F.A. No. 2363 of 2004 (O&M) ...Respondent Bhupinder Singh Versus Union of India ....Appellant ...Respondent R.F.A. No. 727 of 2001 [ 15] (84) R.F.A. No. 2364 of 2004 (O&M) Pritpal Singh Versus Union of India ....Appellant ...Respondent (85) R.F.A. No. 2365 of 2004 (O&M) Manjit Kaur and others ....Appellants Versus Union of India (86) R.F.A. No. 2366 of 2004 (O&M) ...Respondent Sukhdev Singh Versus Union of India ....Appellant (87) R.F.A. No. 2367 of 2004 (O&M) ...Respondent Kulbir Singh Versus Union of India ....Appellant (88) R.F.A. No. 2368 of 2004 (O&M) ...Respondent Daljit Singh Versus Union of India ....Appellant (89) R.F.A. No. 2369 of 2004 (O&M) ...Respondent Arvinder Singh Versus Union of India ....Appellant ...Respondent R.F.A. No.

727 of 2001 [ 16] (90) R.F.A. No. 2370 of 2004 (O&M) Smt. Krishna Devi and others ....Appellants Versus Union of India (91) R.F.A. No. 2371 of 2004 (O&M) ...Respondent Bhupinder Kaur Versus Union of India ....Appellant (92) R.F.A. No. 2372 of 2004 (O&M) ...Respondent Brahmjit Singh Versus Union of India ....Appellant (93) R.F.A. No. 2373 of 2004 (O&M) ...Respondent Padam Singh Versus Union of India ....Appellant (94) R.F.A. No. 2374 of 2004 (O&M) ...Respondent Puran Singh and another ....Appellants Versus Union of India (95) R.F.A. No. 2375 of 2004 (O&M) ...Respondent Chandrawati Versus Union of India ....Appellant ...Respondent R.F.A. No. 727 of 2001 [ 17] (96) R.F.A. No. 2376 of 2004 (O&M) Paramjit Singh Versus Union of India ....Appellant (97) R.F.A. No. 2377 of 2004 (O&M) ...Respondent Baldev Singh and another ....Appellants Versus Union of India (98) R.F.A. No. 2378 of 2004 (O&M) ...Respondent Baldev Singh and another ....Appellants Versus Union of India (99) R.F.A. No.

2411 of 2004 (O&M) ...Respondent Satish Kumar Versus ....Appellant Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (100) R.F.A. No. 2435 of 2004 (O&M) Bikram Singh and others ....Appellants Versus Union of India (101) R.F.A. No. 2437 of 2004 (O&M) ...Respondent Jeet Kaur and another Versus Union of India and another ....Appellants ...Respondents R.F.A. No. 727 of 2001 [ 18] (102) R.F.A. No. 2498 of 2004 (O&M) Karun Raghuvanshi and others ....Appellants Versus Union of India (103) R.F.A. No. 2499 of 2004 (O&M) ...Respondent Dilbagh Singh and others ....Appellants Versus Union of India (104) R.F.A. No. 2500 of 2004 (O&M) ...Respondent Brahamjit Singh and another ....Appellants Versus Union of India (105) R.F.A. No. 2501 of 2004 (O&M) ...Respondent Baljit Singh and others ....Appellants Versus Union of India (106) R.F.A. No. 236 of 2005 (O&M) ...Respondent Rattan Devi and others Versus Union of India and others ....Appellants (107) R.F.A. No.

237 of 2005 (O&M) ...Respondents Shamsher Singh and others ....Appellants Versus Union of India and another ...Respondents R.F.A. No. 727 of 2001 [ 19] (108) R.F.A. No. 238 of 2005 (O&M) Shamsher Singh and others ....Appellants Versus Union of India and another (109) R.F.A. No. 239 of 2005 (O&M) ...Respondents Leela Devi and others ....Appellants Versus Union of India (110) R.F.A. No. 240 of 2005 (O&M) ...Respondent Leela Devi and others ....Appellants Versus Union of India (111) R.F.A. No. 241 of 2005 (O&M) ...Respondent Jaswant Singh and others ....Appellants Versus Union of India (112) R.F.A. No. 242 of 2005 (O&M) ...Respondent Shamsher Singh and others ....Appellants Versus Union of India (113) R.F.A. No. 243 of 2005 (O&M) ...Respondent Leela Devi and others Versus Union of India and others ....Appellants ...Respondents R.F.A. No. 727 of 2001 [ 20] (114) R.F.A. No. 251 of 2005 (O&M) Prem Singh and others ....Appellants Versus Union of India (115) R.F.A. No.

252 of 2005 (O&M) ...Respondent Smt. Janki Devi Versus Union of India ....Appellant (116) R.F.A. No. 429 of 2005 (O&M) ...Respondent Sukhdev Singh and others Versus Union of India and others ....Appellants (117) R.F.A. No. 430 of 2005 (O&M) ...Respondents Prem Singh and others Versus Union of India and others ....Appellants (118) R.F.A. No. 431 of 2005 (O&M) ...Respondents Satpal Singh and others Versus Union of India and others ....Appellants (119) R.F.A. No. 2114 of 2005 (O&M) ...Respondents Mohan Singh Versus ....Appellant Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent R.F.A. No. 727 of 2001 [ 21] (120) R.F.A. No. 3636 of 2008 (O&M) Ram Raj Versus ....Appellant Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent (121) R.F.A. No. 3637 of 2008 (O&M) Gaya Prasad Versus ....Appellant Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: S/ Shri P. C. Dhiman, D. S. Raghu, Rajesh Kumar and R. K. Dhiman, Advocates for the land owners.

Ms. Lisa Gill, Ms. Alka Chatrath, Mr. Vishal Sodhi and Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocates for Union Territory, Chandigarh. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of a bunch of 121 appeals, as the same arise out of common acquisition. R.F.A. Nos. 727 to 731, 762 to 764, 775 to 777, 789, 834, 1763, 2018 of 2001, 2015, 2524, 2525, 2781, 3041, 3141, 3231 to 3233, 3429, 3484, 3579, 3586, 3618 of 2002, 836 to 842, 1092, 1093, 1241, 1322 to 1324, 1326 to 1332, 1555, 1557, 1582, 2475 to 2477, 2506, 4722 to 4727 of 2003, 2324 to 2326, 2357 to 2378, 2411, 2435, 2437, 2498 to 2501 of 2004, 236 to 243, 251, 252, 429 to 431, 2114 of 2005, 3636 and 36377 of 2008 have been filed by the land owners seeking further enhancement of compensation. R.F.A. Nos. 1446 to 1456 of 2004 have been filed by Union Territory, Chandigarh seeking reduction of compensation on account of acquisition of land. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Chandigarh Administration vide notification dated 3.7.1997, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), acquired the land within the revenue estate of village Nizampur Kumbra for development as Sector 51, Chandigarh.

The same was R.F.A. No. 727 of 2001 [ 22] followed by notification dated 30.6.1998, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of the land at Rs. 10,86,500/- 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 upheld the award of the Collector. Vide another notification dated 3.7.1997, issued under Section 4 of the Act, Chandigarh Administration acquired the land of neighbouring villages Nizampur Burail . The Collector assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 5,91,200/- 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 assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 12,00,000/- per acre. Learned counsels for the land owners submitted that acquisition in the present case is pertaining to the land of villages Nizampur Khumbra, Nizampur Burail and Jhumru. The notification for acquisition was issued on

3.7.1997. It is submitted though there is other evidence on record, the learned court below while passing the impugned award had referred to an earlier judgment of this Court in R.F.A. No. 2169 of 1998 –Sukhpal Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, where the acquisition was for land falling in village Jhumru acquired vide notification dated 11.10.1991 was determined at Rs. 5,50,000/- per acre and found that the value of the acquired land, as was determined by the Collector at Rs. 10,86,500/- per acre, was fair enough. They further submitted that in the Letters Patent Appeal filed against the aforesaid judgment in Sukhpal Singh's case (supra), the matter was remanded to the learned Single Judge, where this Court on reconsideration of the matter in R.F.A. No. 2326 of 1998 –Som Nath and others v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, decided on 3.9.2008 determined the value at Rs. 9,85,000/- per acre. Reference was made to another judgment of this Court in R.F.A. No.

2340 of 1998 –Surjan Singh and others v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, decided on 24.9.2008 where for the land pertaining to village Burail vide notification dated 15.10.1991, the value was determined at Rs. 9,85,000/- per acre. Another reliance was placed upon judgment in R.F.A. No. 696 of 1998— Joginder Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, decided on 29.11.2006, where for acquisition of land vide notification dated 22.5.1992 pertaining to village Kajheri for development of third phase of Chandigarh, this Court relying upon the earlier judgment in R.F.A. No. 2511 of 1997 –Bhajan Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, decided on 29.11.2006, and granting increase at the rate of 10% per R.F.A. No. 727 of 2001 [ 23] annum thereon for the time gap in different notifications, determined the market value at Rs. 10,12,000/- per acre. Further reference was made to the statement of PW1-Charan Dass, Senior Assistant, Chandigarh Housing Board, wherein he stated that vide letter dated 16.8.1991 (Ex.

P1), Chandigarh Administration had allotted land @ Rs. 500/- per square yard to the Chandigarh Housing Board on chunk basis for further allotment to the Societies @ Rs. 750/- per square yard in Sectors 48 and 49 on 99 years lease basis. They further submitted that vide letter (Ex. P3), another chunk of land falling in Sector 61 was allotted by Chandigarh Administration to Chandigarh Housing Board @ Rs. 850/- per square yard on lease hold basis. They also referred to the statement of PW6-Multan Chand, Clerk in the office of Chandigarh Housing Board, who produced letter dated 1.2.2000 issued by Chandigarh Administration, wherein the rates for allotment of land to the Cooperative Society in Chandigarh on big chunk basis was revised to Rs. 2,500/- per square yard w.e.f. 1.1.1998. They further submitted that the land is situated near the already urbanised area of Chandigarh and this was last chunk of land which was available in Chandigarh towards Mohali.

The entire area abutting the acquired land in Punjab falling in District Mohali was already developed. The prayer is made for grant of increase @ 12% per annum on the value of the land determined by this Court for acquisition, which was carried out vide notification dated 11.10.1991, where the value was determined at Rs. 9,85,000/- per acre. The time gap in two acquisition is nearly six years. In R.F.A. No. 4724 of 2003, it is submitted that the learned court below had merely given 15% increase on the value of the super structure, as was determined by the Collector as against the judgment of this Court granting increase @ 25% thereon. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in R.F.A. No. 663 of 2004 –Union Territory, Chandigarh v. Sajjan Singh, decided on 2.8.2006. Another contention raised is with regard to grant of increase on the value of fruit trees as were standing on the acquired land.

It is submitted that though the value has been determined as per Dr. Nijjar formula, however, the percentage of increase, as was required to be given considering the price index, has not been awarded. The price index for the year 1985 was 124 which increased to 325 in the year 1997. Hence, there was a difference of 201. The increase granted by the learned court below is merely 162% which deserves to be enhanced to 201%. In R.F.A. No. 2114 of 2005, the contention raised is that the learned court below has upheld the award of the Collector granting only the scrap value of R.F.A. No. 727 of 2001 [ 24] the super structure, whereas in other cases, the reference court had awarded increase of 15% on the value of the super structure, as was determined at PWD rates by the Collector. In some of the cases, even 25% increase has been granted in consonance with the judgments of this Court. Accordingly, the land owners in the present case are also entitled to the value of the super structure as determined by the Collector plus 25% increase thereon.

On the other hand, learned counsel for Union Territory submitted that the judgments as such cannot be relied upon for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land, when there is independent evidence on record in the form of sale deeds produced by the land owners. There is evidence in the form of sale deeds (Ex. P43 and Ex. P48) on record. Even otherwise, the judgments, which have been relied upon by the land owners in R.F.A. Nos. 2511 of 1997, 696,2326 and 2340 of 1998 pertain to different village or the acquisition therein was much prior to the acquisition in the present case. As far as valuation of trees is concerned, reliance was placed upon a judgment of this Court in Sajjan Singh's case (supra) where this Court had already upheld the determination of value of super structure and the fruit trees, as was awarded by the learned Reference Court, where increase of 162% in the value of fruit bearing trees assessed by the learned Reference Court was upheld and the increase of 25% on the value of super structure, as was determined by the court below.

Another argument raised is that construction in some of the cases having been raised without any permission from the competent authority and in violation of Periphery Control Act 1952, the land owners are not entitled to any compensation for the super structure and all what can be granted to them is the scrap value thereof. Further reference was made to the evidence led by the State in the form of sale deeds pertaining to land of Village Nizampur Burail, which according to learned counsel for the Union Territory have not been considered at all. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. Learned counsel for the Union Territory could not dispute the fact stated by learned counsel for the land owners that the judgments, which have been referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the land owners, have not been challenged by the Union Territory any further.

As far as determination of value of the acquired land is concerned, I do not find any merit in the contentions raised by learned counsel for Union R.F.A. No. 727 of 2001 [ 25] Territory to the effect that earlier judgments of this Court pertaining to the acquisition of land of the same village and acquired for the same purpose should not be relied upon and as against that merely some sale deeds produced on record by the parties should be relied upon. The fact cannot be disputed that on earlier occasion, when the value of the adjoining acquired land was determined by this court, the entire evidence produced by the parties was considered. On the basis of the material on record, it cannot be concluded that during this intervening period, the value of the property has gone down. For the purpose, we may refer to document (Ex. P1), whereby vide letter dated 16.8.1991, Chandigarh Administration had allotted big chunk of land to Chandigarh Housing Board @ Rs.

500/- per square yard for further allotment to the Cooperative Societies for construction of flats after carrying out some external development @ Rs. 750/- per square yard. The land so allotted formed part of Sectors 48 and 49, Chandigarh, whereas the land, which was acquired vide notification under consideration forms part of Sector 51. In addition to this, another document (Ex. P3) dated 16.9.1996, was placed on record, vide which the land was allotted by Chandigarh Administration to Chandigarh Housing Board forming part of Sector 61, pertaining to village Kajheri @ Rs. 850/- per square yard. Not only this, another letter dated

1.2.2000 was produced on record by PW6-Multan Chand, Clerk in the office of Chandigarh Housing Board to prove that the rates for transfer of land to Chandigarh Housing Board by Chandigarh Administration had been revised to Rs. 2,500/- per square yard w.e.f. 1.3.1998. In Chandigarh, because of the application of Periphery Control Act, construction activity is not permissible. The Administration is acquiring land for development as residential-cum-commercial area, which is being allotted at exhorbitant purposes. The trend at which the Administration has increased the price for allotment of land shows that during the intervening period, the prices of the property has not gone down in the area, rather, has increased. The acquisition in the present case is vide notification dated 3.7.1997. Another fact, which is important is that portion of the land, which was acquired vide notification under consideration is sandwiched between already developed area of Chandigarh and Mohali, as it abuts the sectors already developed in Mohali (Punjab).

It is considered as third phase of development in Chandigarh. The acquisition is for urbanisation of the land for residential and commercial area. Once earlier judgments of this Court determining the value of the acquired land in the vicinity have not been challenged by Chandigarh Administration any further, I do not find any reason not to rely thereupon for determination of fair value of the acquired R.F.A. No. 727 of 2001 [ 26] land in the vicinity thereof. Accordingly, considering the trend of prices, in my opinion, increase of 10% per annum can very well be granted to the land owners in the present case on the value of land determined for acquisition carried out vide notification dated 11.10.1991. The time gap between the notifications being five years and 9 months, adding 57% on the same, the value of the acquired land would come out to Rs. 15,46,450/- per acre. The land owners shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available to them under the Act.

As far as the claim regarding increase of compensation on account of fruit bearing trees standing on the acquired land is concerned, I do not find any illegality has been committed by the learned court below in awarding increase @ 162% on the value so assessed by the Collector, considering the difference in price index for the years 1985 and 1997. The admitted position on record is that the price index in the year 1985 was 124 which increased to 325 in the year 1997. Applying Dr. Nijjar's formula, the Collector assessed the value of the trees as in 1985, meaning thereby the assessment is at the base level of 124 as the price index, which increased to 325 at the time of acquisition. Though the difference in the price index is 201 but as claimed by learned counsel for the land owners, they cannot be granted increase on the value so determined by the Collector @ 201%, as the differential increase between 124 and 325 is 162% only. Accordingly, no illegality has been committed by the learned court below in valuing the fruit bearing trees by granting increase of 162% on the base value assessed for the year

1985. Similar view was expressed by this Court in Sajjan Singh's case (supra). Even as regards super structure also, the amount already awarded to the land owners is in conformity with the judgment of this Court in Sajjan Singh's case (supra), where grant of 25% increase on the value so assessed by the Collector at PWD rates was upheld by this Court. Accordingly, no case for further enhancement of compensation on that account is made out. February 04 , 2009 (Rajesh Bindal) Judge