Dismissed

Ut Chandigarh v. Gram Panchayat v.Behlanda

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Sept 2008LPA/2162/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed appeals by the Union Territory against district and single judge awards enhancing land acquisition compensation. The court upheld the enhanced award, rejecting arguments that compensation should be based on sale deeds from immediately adjoining villages or prior judgments, finding no infirmity in the enhanced rate.

What did the court decide?

Letters Patent Appeals and cross-objections dismissed with no order as to costs.

Ut Chandigarh Vs Gram Panchayat v.Behlanda — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

LPA No.2162 of 2001 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA .

¶3

LPA No.2162 of 2001 Date of decision: 10.9.2008

¶4

Union Territory, Chandigarh

¶5

..Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Gram Panchayat of Village Behlana ...Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

¶9

Present: Ms. Lisa Gill, Advocate, for the appellant.

¶10

Mr. A.S. Chahal, Advocate, Mr. APS Mann, Advocate, Ms. Ekta Thakur, Advocate, for the respondents.

¶11

In Cross objections:

¶12

Mr. A.S. Chahal, Advocate, for the objectors-respondents. Ms. Lisa Gill, Advocate for Union Territory Chandigarh.

¶13

Ashutosh Mohunta, J.

¶14

This judgment shall dispose of Letter Patent Appeal Nos.2162, 2161, 2163, 2164, 2165, 2167, 2169, 2170, 2171, 2172 and 2173 of 2001 and Cross Objections No.2 of 2002 in LPA No.2163, No.3 of 2002 in LPA No.2167 and No.2 of 2003 in LPA No.2169, as common question of law and facts arises in all these cases. For brevity, we have extracted the facts from LPA No.2162 of 2001.

¶15

The Union Territory, Chandigarh has filed these Letters Patent Appeals against the judgment, passed by the learned Single Judge in RFA No.350 of 1996, vide which compensation for the land acquired

¶16

LPA No.2162 of 2001 2

¶17

has been enhanced from Rs.2,47,160/- per acre, as awarded by the learned District Judge, Chandigarh to Rs.4,50,000/- per acre along with the statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act.

¶18

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Chandigarh administration vide notification dated 13^th October, 1989, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, intended to acquire 25.81 acres of land, situated in village Behlana for public purpose, namely, for installation of Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force (Camps) at Chandigarh. Notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 27^th October, 1989, whereby the entire land as sought to be acquired vide declaration under Section 6, was acquired.

¶19

The Land Acquisition Collector, vide his award dated 5^th February, 1990 awarded compensation @ Rs.1,65,400/- per acre for all kinds of land. Being dissatisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, the Gram Panchayat of village Behlana and other co-owners of the land filed separate applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for referring the matter to the District Judge. On reference by the Land Acquisition Collector, the District Judge, Chandigarh enhanced the compensation from Rs.1,65,400/- to Rs.2,47,160/- per acre. While enhancing the compensation, reliance was placed on Ex. P-15, which is the judgment pertaining to the land of village Hallo Majra which is adjoining to the land in question. As per the judgment Ex. P-15, 24 acres of land situated in village Hallo Majra was acquired vide notification dated 20^th November, 1985 and the

¶20

LPA No.2162 of 2001 3

¶21

compensation had been determined at Rs.1,67,000/- per acre. As the land in the present case was acquired on 13^th October, 1989 i.e. four years after the judgment Ex. P-15 was rendered, therefore, by calculating escalation of price for four years, compensation @ Rs.2,47,160/- was awarded by the District Judge.

¶22

Being dissatisfied with the award of the District Judge, the land owners filed Regular First Appeal against the said judgment, which have been decided by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 12^th January, 2001 whereby compensation has been enhanced from Rs.2,47,160/- to Rs.4,50,000/- per acre. While enhancing the compensation, the learned Single Judge has placed reliance on saledeeds Ex.P12, P13 & P14, however, no reliance was placed on judgment Ex.P15.

¶23

Ms. Lisa Gill, learned counsel for Union Territory has vehemently argued that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set-aside as there is judicial precedent in the form of judgment Ex. P-15, according to which compensation of Rs.1,67,000/has been awarded and, therefore, there was no reason to rely on any other evidence. On the basis of the above, learned counsel submits that the judgment of the District Judge, Chandigarh is liable to be upheld and the judgment of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set-aside.

¶24

In response to the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Chahal, learned counsel for the land owners has contended that the sale-deeds Ex.P12, P13 and P14 are the most relevant

¶25

LPA No.2162 of 2001 4

¶26

pieces of evidence because the lands sold vide the aforementioned saledeeds pertained to a period two months prior to issuance of the notification in the present case. Learned counsel submits that vide Ex.P12, land measuring 11 Kanals 8 Marlas, situated in village Raipur Khurd was sold on 28^th August, 1989 for a sum of Rs.9,04,000/- per acre, average of which comes to Rs.6,35,000/- per acre. Likewise, learned counsel has submitted that vide Ex. P-13, land measuring 5 Kanals 6 Marlas also situated in village Raipur Khurd, was sold for Rs.4,24,000/- i.e. at an average price of Rs.6,50,000/- per acre and vide Ex. P-14, land measuring 8 Kanals, situated in village Raipur Khurd was sold on 17^th July, 1989 for a sum of Rs.6,40,000/-. It is also contended by the learned counsel that as village Raipur Khurd is just across the road and the distance from the acquired land is only 120 meters, therefore, the sale-deeds Ex.P12, P13 & P14 are the most relevant pieces of evidence, on the basis of which compensation should be determined.

¶27

Learned counsel has also vehemently argued that the potential of the acquired land has to be taken into consideration because the acquired land abuts on Chandigarh- Patiala National Highway. The industrial area is only 1/2 kilometer away from the acquired land and the aerodrome is in the same vicinity. Learned counsel further submits that as the potential of the acquired land is very high, therefore, the price as depicted in Ex.P12 to P14 should be taken into consideration for working out the compensation in the present case. It is contended that if

¶28

LPA No.2162 of 2001 5

¶29

the average price of sale deeds Ex.P12 to P14 is worked out, then the land owners would be entitled to compensation of Rs.6,40,000/- per acre.

¶30

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. A perusal of the evidence in the instant case shows that Ex.P12 to P14 would be very relevant pieces of evidence which have to be taken into consideration while determining the price in the present case as the lands sold vide these exhibits pertain to village Raipur Khurd which is just across the road from the acquired land and is only 120 meters away as is clear from the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

¶31

Apart from the above, the sale-deeds relate to the months of July and August, 1989 and the land in the present case was acquired on 13^th October, 1989 i.e. merely 2/3 months after the execution of the saledeeds Ex.P12 to P14. Moreover, the judgment Ex. P15 would also be very relevant which pertains to the acquisition of land of village Hallo Majra which was acquired vide notification dated 20^th November, 1985. Vide this notification, a large chunk of land measuring 24 acres was acquired for the public purpose namely for setting up of a Centre for C.R.P.F. It is pertinent to mention here that Village Hallo Majra is also adjoining Village Behlana i.e. the village in which the land in the instant case has been acquired.

¶32

Learned counsel for Union Territory, Chandigarh has also drawn our attention to LPA No.1936 of 2001 whereby the appeals filed by some of the land owners, arising out of this very notification, have

¶33

LPA No.2162 of 2001 6

¶34

been dismissed vide judgment dated 16^th May, 2002. It is pertinent to mention here that the aforementioned LPA was preferred against the same very judgment of the learned Single Judge.

¶35

Having held that only Ex.P12 to P14 and Ex.P15 would be relevant pieces of evidence to determine the compensation, we propose to add up the sale price of the aforementioned four exhibits and draw the mean value thereof. By this method, the average price of the land comes to Rs.5,37,000/- per acre. However, as none of the sale-deeds Ex.P12 to P14 pertain to village Behlana nor the judgment Ex.P15 relates to the land acquired in village Behlana, therefore, we find no infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge vide which compensation @ Rs.4,50,000/- per acre has been determined.

¶36

We are aware that the acquired lands are contiguous to the lands situated in villages Raipur Khurd and Hallo Majra in respect of which Ex.P12 to P14 and judgment Ex.P15 have been relied upon to contend that the land owners are entitled to the same rate as in villages Raipur Khurd and Hallo Majra. However, mere contiguity of the lands, which are subject matter of the present acquisition with those of villages Raipur Khurd and Hallo Majra, would not establish that same rate would be admissible to both sets of land. Thus, we find no ground to upset the finding arrived at by the learned Single Judge.

¶37

LPA No.2162 of 2001 7

¶38

Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeals filed by the Union

¶39

Territory Chandigarh as well as the cross-objections filed by the land owners are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

(ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE

¶41

(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE September 10, 2008 'rajpal'

Ut Chandigarh v. Gram Panchayat v.Behlanda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ut Chandigarh v. Gram Panchayat v.Behlanda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surinder Lal Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Gurdial Singh Vs Union of India

Baljit Singh and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ut Chandigarh Vs Kulwant Singh

Ut Chandigarh Vs Pal Chand

Ut Chandigarh Vs Nachhattar Kaur