The High Court allowed appeals by landowners, fixing compensation at Rs. 196 per square yard based on a prior judgment for adjacent land acquired days earlier, and directed payment of statutory benefits.
Compensation fixed at Rs. 196 per square yard; statutory benefits awarded to landowners.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
RFA No. 832 of 2002 (O&M)
(1)
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
| 1. | RFA No. 832 of 2002 (O&M) | Date of decision : 18.4.2009 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Smt. Parminder Kaur and others Union Territory, Chandigarh |
vs | ..... Appellants .... Respondent |
|
| 2. | RFA No. 162 of 2002 (O&M) | ||
| Kishan Lal | ..... Appellant | ||
| Union Territory, Chandigarh | vs | .... Respondent | |
| 3. | RFA No. 163 of 2002 (O&M) | ||
| Smt. Gurdial Surjit Singh and oth | ers vs |
..... Appellants | |
| Union Territory, Chandigarh | .... Respondent | ||
| 4. | RFA No. 202 of 2002 (O&M) | ||
| Rajesh Kumar | ..... Appellant | ||
| Union Territory, Chandigarh | vs | .... Respondent | |
| 5. | RFA No. 203 of 2002 (O&M) | ||
| Vinod Kumar | ..... Appellant | ||
| Union Territory, Chandigarh | vs | .... Respondent | |
| 6. | RFA No. 1358 of 2002 (O&M) | ||
| Smt. Darshna Sharma | ..... Appellant | ||
| Union Territory, Chandigarh | vs | .... Respondent | |
| 7. | RFA No. 1432 of 2002 (O&M) | ||
| Dharam Singh and others | ..... Appellants | ||
| Union Territory, Chandigarh | vs | .... Respondent | |
| 8. | RFA No. 2006 of 2002 (O&M) | ||
| Baljit Singh | ..... Appellant | ||
| Union of India | vs | .... Respondent | |
| 9. | RFA No. 2007 of 2002 (O&M) | ||
| Baljit Singh Union of India |
vs | ..... Appellant .... Respondent |
RFA No. 832 of 2002 (O&M) (2)
| 10. | RFA No. 2587 of 2002 (O&M) U. T. Chandigarh |
vs | ..... Appellant |
|---|---|---|---|
| Naurang Singh and others | .... Respondents | ||
| 11. | RFA No. 2588 of 2002 (O&M) | ||
| Union of India | vs | ..... Appellant | |
| Bakshish Singh | .... Respondent | ||
| 12. | RFA No. 2590 of 2002 (O&M) | ||
| Union Territory, Chandigarh | vs | ..... Appellant | |
| Smt. Parminder Kaur and others | .... Respondents | ||
| 13. | RFA No. 2591 of 2002 (O&M) | ||
| Union of India | vs | ..... Appellant | |
| Baljit Singh | .... Respondent | ||
| 14. | RFA No. 2592 of 2002 (O&M) | ||
| Union of India | vs | ..... Appellant | |
| Smt. Labh Kaur | .... Respondent | ||
| 15. | RFA No. 2593 of 2002 (O&M) | ||
| Union of India | vs | ..... Appellant | |
| Gurjang Singh and others | .... Respondents | ||
| 16. | RFA No. 2594 of 2002 (O&M) | ||
| Union of India | vs | ..... Appellant | |
| Manimajra Motor Traders Union | .... Respondent | ||
| 17. | RFA No. 2595 of 2002 (O&M) | ||
| Union of India | ..... Appellant | ||
| Baljit Singh | vs | .... Respondent | |
| 18. | RFA No. 2824 of 2002 (O&M) | ||
| Smt. Labh Kaur Union of India |
vs | ..... Appellant .... Respondent |
RFA No. 832 of 2002 (O&M) (3)
19. RFA No. 3376 of 2002 (O&M)
| Gurjang Singh and others | ..... Appellants | |
|---|---|---|
| vs Union of India |
.... Respondent | |
| 20. | RFA No. 3982 of 2002 (O&M) | |
| Gurjang Singh and others vs |
..... Appellants | |
| Union of India | .... Respondent |
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. P. C. Dhiman, Advocate, Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate for Mr. Hardip Singh, Advocate, Ms. Ekta Thakur, Advocate, Mr. Gurmail Singh, Advocate for Mr. D. S. Raghu, Advocate, for the landowners.
Mr. Sanjiv Ghai, Advocate,
Mr. Sikander Bakshi, Advocate for Mr. Vishal Sodhi, Advocate, for UT Chandigarh.
Rajesh Bindal J.
This order will dispose of a bunch of 20 appeals, as the same arise out of a common acquisition.
R.F.A. Nos. 162, 163, 202, 203, 832, 1358, 1432, 2006, 2007, 2824, 3376 and 3982 of 2002 have been filed by the land owners seeking further enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned court below.
R.F.A. Nos. 2587, 2588, and 2590 to 2595 of 2002 have been filed by the Union Territory, Chandigarh and Union of India seeking reduction of compensation awarded to the land owners by the learned court below.
The facts have been noticed from R.F.A. No. 832 of 2002.
Briefly, the facts are that notification dated 27.11.1991, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act'), was issued for acquisition of land in the revenue estate of Manimajra, UT Chandigarh, for setting up of Nurseries. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, the Collector'), vide award dated 5.2.1993 assessed the market value at Rs. 2 lacs per acre for all kinds of land except gair mumkin nadi and nallah for which the market value was assessed at Rs. 75,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, learned court below enhanced the compensation from Rs. 2 lacs per acre to Rs. 4,35,600/per acre. It is this award which is impugned in the present set of appeals.
Learned counsel for the landowners submitted that the learned Reference court has failed to assess the fair market value of the acquired land. The
RFA No. 832 of 2002 (O&M)
(4)
acquired land is situated at left side of the Chandigarh-Kalka Road. The compensation determined by the learned Reference court is on the lower side as the acquired land is situated in between Chandigarh, Panchkula and Housing Board Colony of NAC Manimajra. The area adjoining the acquired land is developed area. It has great potential value for being used as residential, commercial and industrial purposes. Learned counsel for the landowners have also relied upon an earlier judgment of this Court in R.F.A. No. 893 of 2000 R. D. Sharma and another vs The Union Territory of Chandigarh , decided on 20.10.2008, where for the land situated on other side of the road for which the acquisition was carried out vide notification dated 10.12.1991, this Court had determined the value of the land at Rs. 196/- per square yard.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for Union Territory, Chandigarh, submitted that much more has been granted by the learned Reference Court. The submission is that the award in other case cannot be made basis for determination of the value of the land in the present case unless there is any independent evidence to prove the value of the land in the area.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
As far as the location of the acquired land is concerned, it is not disputed by either of the parties. It is also not in dispute that the acquisition carried out vide notification dated 10.12.1991 for setting up of Artisan village is on the right side of Chandigarh- Kalka Road and the land in question is located on left side of the road. This court in R.D.Sharma's case (supra) for the land acquired vide notification dated 10.12.1991 had assessed the compensation @ Rs. 196/- per square yard. The acquisition in the present set of appeals was carried out vide notification dated 27.11.1991. The judgment of this Court in R. D. Sharma's case (supra) is the best judicial precedent for the purpose of determination of fair value of the land in the present. As there is difference of only 12 days in both the notifications and the acquired land is situated just on the other side of the road, the value of the acquired land in the present case is also assessed at Rs.196/- per square yard. The landowners in the present set of appeals shall also be entitled to statutory benefits as are available under the Act.
The appeals are allowed in the manner indicated above.
18.4.2009 vs.
( Rajesh Bindal) Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the fair market value of land acquired for nurseries can be determined by applying the valuation rate from a nearby land acquisition carried out twelve days earlier.
Whether landowners are entitled to statutory benefits along with the enhanced compensation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R. D. Sharma and another vs The Union Territory of ChandigarhRelied on¶23
R.F.A. No. 893 of 2000 R. D. Sharma and another vs The Union Territory of Chandigarh
R.D.Sharma's caseApplied¶26
R.F.A. No. 893 of 2000 R.D.Sharma's case
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Parminder Kaur and others
Kishan Lal
Smt. Gurdial Surjit Singh and others
Rajesh Kumar
Vinod Kumar
Smt. Darshna Sharma
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
