(1.) This order shall dispose of the above mentioned appeals, as the same arise out of a common acquisition. The Union Territory has approached this court for reduction in the compensation, whereas the landowners have approached for enhancement of compensation of the acquired land. Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 33.14 acres, situated in Village Kajheri, U.T., Chandigarh was acquired by the Chandigarh Administration vide notification dated 13.1.1995 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for the rehabilitation of the colony near Kahjeri village. The same was followed by notification dated 9.3.1995, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') vide award No. 501 dated 22.1.1996 determined market value of the land at Rs. 3,57,300/- per acre. 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. 7,45,360/- per acre vide award dated 17.2.2001. Besides other benefits, the learned court below also awarded 15% enhancement in the compensation to the claimants regarding existing on their respective lands. Vide another notification of the same date i.e. 13.1.1995, issued under Section 4 of the Act, land measuring 6.69 acres, situated in same Village Kajheri, U.T., Chandigarh was acquired for construction of approach road from Junction of Sectors 58-59, Chandigarh. The Collector vide award No. 496 dated 8.5.1996 assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 3,57,300/- per acre. Aggrieved against the award, 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. 7,45,360/- per acre vide award dated 22.8.2001. Learned counsel for the landowners submitted that the learned court below has not assessed the fair value of the acquired land on the basis of evidence led by the landowners. It was submitted that the land of Village Kajheri was earlier acquired vide notification dated 22.5.1992 for development of third phase of Chandigarh and this court in RFA No. 696 of 1998 Joginder Singh vs Union Territory, Chandigarh decided on 29.11.2006, determined the value of the land at Rs. 10,12,000/- per acre. In RFA No. 97 of 2001 Gurdev Singh (deceased) through LRs and another vs Union Territory, Chandigarh decided on 20.4.2009, for the land acquired vide notification dated 5.1.1996, this court assessed the compensation at Rs. 15,21,312/- per acre while granting increase @ 12% per annum on the value of the land acquired vide notification dated 22.5.1992. In the present case, the land was acquired vide notification dated 13.1.1995. He further submitted that as the land has great potential for being utilized for residential and commercial purposes, the landowners are entitled to further increase in the value of the acquired land considering the time gap in the notifications. It was also submitted that enhancement of 15% regarding superstructures standing on the acquired land is on lower side as this court in RFA No. 579 of 2006 Smt. Akko Devi and others vs Union Territory, Chandigarh and another decided on 1.10.2008, awarded 25% increase to the landowners on the value assessed at PWD rates. No other argument was raised.
(2.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the Union Territory submitted that the learned court below has granted much more compensation to the landowners. It was submitted that the learned court below increased the value of the land without any basis, which deserves reduction. Learned counsels appearing for the Union Territory, Chandigarh, however, could not dispute the factum of determination of compensation by this court for the land acquired vide two notifications earlier and later in time in Joginder Singh and Gurdev Singh 's cases (supra). The land in question form part of the revenue estate of same village, is also not in dispute. No other point was raised. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the parties that for the acquisition carried out in the same village vide notification dated 22.5.1992, this court in Joginder Singh's case (supra), assessed the value @ Rs. 10,12,000/- per acre. And for the acquisition carried out in the same village later vide notification dated 5.1.1996, the value was assessed @ Rs. 15,21,312/- per acre granting an increase of 12% per annum on the value assessed earlier in Gurdev Singh's case (supra). The acquisition in the present case was carried out vide notification dated 13.1.1995 i.e. after two years and seven months of acquisition considered by this court in Joginder Singh's case (supra). In my opinion, for the intervening period, the landowners are entitled to further increase in the market value of the acquired land for the reason that value of the property in Chandigarh had increased considerably during the intervening period. Increase @ 12% per annum is considered reasonable as has been granted in the cases referred to above, where the value was determined pertaining to the acquisition of land for third phase of Chandigarh. The time gap between the notifications considered by this court in Joginder Singh's case (supra) and the present one, being 2 years and 7 months, adding 31% thereon, the value of the acquired land would come out to Rs. 13,25,720/-, which is rounded off to Rs. 13,25,700/- per acre. The land owners shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available thereon under the Act. As far as compensation on account of valuation of superstructure standing on the land is concerned, considering the principle, which is being consistently followed by this court in similar cases i.e. RFA No. 894 of 1976 Hans Raj and others vs Chandigarh Administration, decided on 8.4.1980; RFA No. 2608 of 1980 Dharam Vir and others vs Union of India decided on 18.8.1981; RFA No. 2560 of 1987 Hazura Singh vs Union of India decided on 25.2.2004; RFA No. 2340 of 1998 Suraj Bhan and others vs Union Territory, Chandigarh decided on 24.9.2008; Jai Kaur vs State of Punjab and another 1992 LACC 501 and Union of India vs Pal Singh and another (1994-3) PLR 569, it is directed that the landowners shall be entitled to compensation on account of acquisition of superstructure standing on the acquired land by granting them increase @ 25% on the value as assessed at PWD rates. The landowners shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits thereon.
(3.) The impugned award of the court below is modified to the extent mentioned above and the appeals are disposed of accordingly.