RAM PARKASH SINGLA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of R. F. A. No. 2350 of 1986 and R. F. A. No. 971 and 972 of 1987 as facts of all the cases, except little variations, which shall be noticed later, are the same. Facts have, however, been taken from R. F. A. No. 972 of 1987 (Ram Parkash Singla v. Union of India)

(2.) VIDE notification issued in that behalf under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 30-8-1980, the Government expressed its intention to acquire 74. 83 acres of land in village Maloya for a public purpose, i. e. to create additional market yards and also to set up second grain and fruit/vegetable market, west of Sector 39, Chandigarh. The follow up declaration under Section 6 of the Act came up on 19-4-1982. Vide award dated 24-3-1983, the Land Acquisition Collector assessed Rs. 45,000/- per acre as the market price of the land under acquisition. Dissatisfied, the appellant/claimants filed reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, which came up for ultimate disposal before the District Judge, Chandigarh and vide his order dated 25-10-1986, compensation was enhanced from Rs. 45,000/- per acre to Rs. 80,000/per acre. Apart from that claimants were also held entitled to solatium of 30% and additional market value at the rate of 12% from the date of publication of the notification to the date of making of the award by the Collector/taking of possession of the acquired land, whichever was earlier In R. F. A. No. 2350 of 1986, however, additional market value of' 12% has not been allowed. They were also held entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of one year and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum for the subsequent period till payment.

(3.) A perusal of the judgment passed by the District Judge would show that the whole case was almost exclusively decided on the basis of award Exhibit P-1, which pertained to land located in Malova itself and with regard to which notification had been issued only ten days prior to the notification involved in the present case. The sale/mutations relied upon by the respondents were rejected by the District Judge and for good reasons. Nothing at all has been argued by the respondents to take me to a different view than the one taken by the District Judge in so far as the reliance on sales/mutations by the respondents is concerned.