Rachan Singh vs Union Territory of Chandigarh

G.S. Singhvi, J.—Not feeling fully satisfied with the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appellants have filed these appeals under clause X of the Letters Patent for further enhancement of the compensation granted to them in respect of the fruit trees planted on their lands.

The land belonging to the appellants was acquired by the Administration for the purpose of creation of additional market yard and sanctioned foodgrain and vegetable market Sector 43, Chandigarh. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') was published on 3.10.1979. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 27.10.1979. The Land Acquisition Collector passed an award on 26.3.1981 in respect of the acquired land. A supplementary award was passed by him in respect of trees and structures standing on the land. In the reference applications filed by them under Section 18 of the Act, the learned District Judge enhanced the compensation in respect of the acquired trees. He also extended the benefit of Section 23(1A) to the claimants. In the Regular First Appeals filed by them, the learned Single Judge further enhanced the compensation in respect of the trees and granted 160% increase to the appellants over and above the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector. The learned Single Judge also granted the benefit of amendment made in the Act of 1894 by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984.

The appellants have now claimed enhancement at the rate of 300% over and above the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Collector.

These appeals were listed for hearing on 23.9.1997 but were adjourned because no one appeared to argue the case on behalf of the appellants. On 25.9.1997, also, the hearing was adjourned because none had appeared on behalf of the appellants. Today also, the appellants and their counsel are absent. We have heard Shri J.R. Mittal counsel for the respondents and have perused the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, the judgment of the Reference Court as also the impugned judgment. We have also perused the judgment dated 4.10.1988 passed by the learned Single Judge in R.F.A. No. 413 of 1984 ''Rachan Singh son of Shadi Singh and Shadi Singh son of Wazira v. Union Territory, Chandigarh''.

While refusing to follow the yardstick laid down by a coordinate Bench in R.F.A. No. 2260 of 1987 ''Hazara Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh'', decided on 26.8.1988, the learned Single Judge has assigned cogent reasons. He has rightly observed that the notification under which the land of the appellants has been acquired was issued 10 months earlier than the notification issued for acquisition of the land belonging to Hazara Singh and others and, therefore, the appellants are not entitled to 200% increase in the amount of compensation. We are in full agreement with the learned Single Judge that the decision given in Hazara Singh''s case (supra) cannot be made basis for giving 300% enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. Another reason for not giving further enhancement to the appellants is that they have already been granted benefit of the amendment made in the Act by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. Thus, there is no legal justification to direct further enhancement of the compensation.

In the result, the appeals fail and the same are dismissed.

Appeals dismissed.