Ram Parkash Singla vs Union of India (UOI)

V.K. Bali, J.—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)

Vide notification issued in that behalf u/s 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 u/s 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 u/s 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.

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.

Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Kartar Singh Thakur, however, argues that while deciding the matter pertaining to earlier notification of village Maloya, on which reliance has been placed to decide the present case by the District Judge, once again the sole reliance placed was on award Exhibit P-10. The aforesaid acquisition pertained to the year 1979. To be precise, notification in the aforesaid case was issued on 3-10-1979 and there being a difference of almost one year, the claimants of the present case were entitled to some increase which has been judicially noticed at the rate of 12% per year as per judgment rendered by this Court in Inder Singh v. The State of Punjab through Secretary to Government Punjab (1988) 94 P.L.R. 190. This is how the precise matter was dealt with by this court in the aforesaid judgment :

"Held, that it cannot be disputed that the prices are increasing and the judicial notice of the increase has to be taken The Legislature has come to the rescue of landowners and provided vide Section 23(1A) of the Act that the claimants shall be entititled to an amount calculated at the rate of 12 per cent per annum as the increase in price for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification u/s 4 of the Act till the date of an announcement of the award or the date of taking over possession of the land, which ever is earlier. From these provisions legislative intention to recognise the increase of 12 per cent in price every year can be inferred."

Learned counsel further contends that the view expressed in the aforesaid judgment has been reiterated in a number of other judgments such as Bhagwan Singh etc. v. Union of India L 1989 .A.C.C. 548 and Bhag Singh v. State of Haryana L 1991 A.C.C 415. The learned counsel also relies upon a decision of Letters Patent Bench of this Court in LPA No. 1207 of 198, decided on 22-9-1982 (Jaswant Singh v. U. O. I., L.P.A. No. 1207 of 1981) to contend that villages within Chandigarh have been held to have the same potential and that being the position, the location of village Maloya where the land of the present claimants was located and location of the land culminating into judgment Ex. P-10 at a different place would not make difference whatsoever.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the points raised by the learned counsel for the appellants have substance. It shall be seen from the judgment rendered in L.P.A. No. 1207 of 1981--Jaswat Singh''s case (supra) - that number of villages were involved and it is true that it was held therein that the location of the villages with a view to workout the market value within Chandigarh would not make any difference. As is made out from the facts referred to above, notification in the present case was issued on 30-8-1980 whereas the one culminating into order Exhibit P-10 was issued on 3-10-1979. There is a difference of almost a year and that being so, the claimants were entitled to some increase, 12 per cent increase was given in Inder Singh''s case (supra). In as much as a period of only 10 months had gone by between the notifications issued u/s 4 pertaining to land involved in Ex. P.10 and the present case, the claimants are accordingly entitled to 10 per cent increase.

Market value of the land assessed by the District Judge is thus enhanced from Rs. 80,000/- per acre to Rs. 88,000/-. The appellants shall also be entitled to all the benefits of the provisions of amended Land Acquisition Act. The appeals to the extent aforesaid are allowed with proportionate costs.