KAILASH CHANDER Vs. UNION OF INDIA COLLECTOR, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole controversy that needs to be solved in this regular first appeal relates to the determination of the market value of 4 marlas of appellant's acquired land. This land has been acquired in pursuance of a notification published under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 18(sic) (for short the Act) on 28th June, 1978. It is beyond dispute that this plot of land abuts Manimajra-Mansa Devi Road. Otherwise also, this fact is so well-established by the statement of the appellants as PWIO, copy of the purchase deep Ex. P-18 vide which the appellant had purchased this land along with some other land on 4th May, 1973 and the site plan Ex. P-17. The appellant has been allowed compensation @ Rs. 625/- per marla. From a reading of the lower Court judgment, it appears that for lands similarly situated along the Manimajra-Panchkula Road, compensation has been allowed @ Rs. 3,000/- per marla for the land upto a depth of 140 feet from that road and @ Rs. 4,000/- per marla for the land up to a depth of 300 feet from the road. It appears to be a case of sheer mission that while awarding those rates of compensation, the learned District Judge failed to make a specific mention about this plot of land and allowed the above-noted rate (Rs. 625/- per marla) the rate determined for the general lot of land not falling in the above-noted two strips of 30' and 140' depth from the Manimajra-Panchkula Road. It is not disputed that this plot of land is also located on that very road if one has to go from Manimajra to Mansa Devi instead of going towards Panchkula. It is again the conceded position that vide my judgment dated 18th August, 1981 in RFA No. 2608 of 1980, Dharamvir and others v. Union of India and others the appellant along with some other claimants had been allowed compensation @ Rs. 2,045/- per marla for the adjoining land. It deserves to be noticed here that appellant's 1-1/2 kanals of land was acquired by the respondent-authorities in pursuance of a notification published under Section 4 of the Act on 30th March, 1976 and the above-referred to judgment of mine relates to that acquisition and its copy on the record of this case is Ex. P-28. Thus, it is patent that the compensation which has now been awarded to the appellant is wholly inadequate & unreasonable and appears to be the result of an omission on the part of the lower Court as already pointed out. The present notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued more than two years later (28th June, 1978) than the earlier notification (30th March, 1976) to which judgment Ex. P-28 relates. It, therefore, appears reasonable and fair that the appellant should be granted compensation at a rate higher than the one determined vide Ex. P-28. Vide my judgment in RFA No. 656 of 1982, Biru Ram v. Union of India decided on 18th October, 1983. I have affirmed the rate of compensation allowed by the Land Acquisition Court for the lands acquired in pursuance of the same very notification, i.e., dated 28th June, 1978. Those lands, as already pointed out, about the Manimajra-Panchkula Road and the rates allowed were Rs. 4,000/- per marla for the land falling within a depth of 30' from the road and Rs. 3,000/- per marla beyond that, up to a depth of 110' or, in other words, 140' from the road. In that judgment I have also found that the present situated land, or the lands to which judgment Ex. P-28 relates are better located areas. In view of that I see no reason as to why the appellant is not entitled to the same rate of compensation at least. Thus, I allow this appeal and hold that the appellant is entitled to be paid compensation @ Rs. 4,000/- per marla for the land which falls within a depth of 30' from the road and @ Rs. 3,000/- per marla for the land falling beyond that up to a depth of 110' i.e. 140' from the Manimajra-Mansa Devi Road. He is also held entitled to the statutory solatium and interest @ 15% & 6% respectively. All this, however, is subject to the claim made by the appellant in his memorandum of appeal and the court-fees paid thereon. He would also be paid the proportionate costs of this litigation.