Union Of India v. Karam Singh(Structure Matter)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: December 12, 2016 Sr.

No.

Case No.

Title Appellant(s) Respondent(s) 1.

RFA-510-2001 Karam Singh 2.

RFA-514-2001 Shabar Hussain 3.

RFA-561-2001 Ramjan Ali 4.

RFA-562-2001 Brahmo Devi 5.

RFA-563-2001 Karnail Singh 6.

RFA-564-2001 Sarista Devi and 7.

RFA-565-2001 Jaishi Ram 8.

RFA-566-2001 Ramesh Chand 9.

RFA-567-2001 Manjar Hussain

10. RFA-1386-2002 Puran Singh and

11. RFA-1387-2002 Gram Panchayat Phangtoli and another

12. RFA-1388-2002 Hoshiar Singh and

13. RFA-3447-2003 Hadet and another

14. RFA-3448-2003 Ruldu Ram and

15. RFA-3449-2003 Kalo Bibi and another

16. RFA-3450-2003 Thuru Din and another

17. RFA-3451-2003 Bir Singh and another

18. RFA-3452-2003 Gurcharan Singh and

19. RFA-3453-2003 Onkar Singh and

20. RFA-3454-2003 Swaran Singh and

21. RFA-3455-2003 Saqid Mohd. and

22. RFA-3456-2003 Swaran Singh and

23. RFA-3457-2003 Nand Lal and another

24. RFA-3458-2003 Harnam Singh and

25. RFA-3459-2003 Jaan Mohd. and

26. RFA-3460-2003 Ram Lal and others

27. RFA-4536-2003 Vijay Kumar

28. RFA-4537-2003 Jagan Nath

29. RFA-4538-2003 Agya Ram

30. RFA-4539-2003 Onkar Singh

31. RFA-4540-2003 Desh Raj

32. RFA-4541-2003 Tarsem Lal

33. RFA-4542-2003 Dhian Singh

34. RFA-4543-2003 Santokh Singh

35. RFA-4544-2003 Avtar Singh

36. RFA-4765-2003 Rumalo and another

37. RFA-4766-2003 Girdhari Lal

38. RFA-4767-2003 Kanail Singh

39. RFA-264-2004 Balwant Singh

40. RFA-265-2004 Shamsher Singh and

41. RFA-628-2004 Karam Chand

42. RFA-871-2004 Sambar Singh and

43. RFA-872-2004 Parkash Chand and

44. RFA-873-2004 Farid and another

45. RFA-874-2004 Bimla Devi and

46. RFA-875-2004 Kehar Singh and

47. RFA-876-2004 Julfi Ram and another

48. RFA-877-2004 Karam Chand and

49. RFA-878-2004 Mohammad Din and

50. RFA-879-2004 Ruldu Ram and

51. RFA-880-2004 Bakshi and another

52. RFA-881-2004 Bukhi Devi and others

53. RFA-1299-2004 Hans Raj

54. RFA-1554-2004 Roda Ram

55. RFA-1944-2004 Dharam Singh

56. RFA-1946-2004 Pritam Singh @ Primat Singh

57. RFA-2059-2004 Dilwar Singh and

58. RFA-2060-2004 Charan Dass and

59. RFA-2061-2004 Mangal Singh and

60. RFA-2062-2004 Jaan Mohammad and

61. RFA-2063-2004 Dhian Chand and

62. RFA-2064-2004 Babu Ram and another

63. RFA-2065-2004 Bua Ditta and another

64. RFA-2194-2004 Asha Rani and others

65. RFA-2196-2004 Labhu Ram and

66. RFA-2235-2004 Dhian Singh and

67. RFA-5-2005 Vidya Devi and

68. RFA-6-2005 Dharam Chand

69. RFA-7-2005 Subhash Chand

70. RFA-122-2005 Ravinder Kumar

71. RFA-123-2005 Balbir Singh

72. RFA-240-2009 Sheela Devi and

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI

Present:

Mr. R.S. Manhas, Advocate, for the land-owners (in RFA Nos. 1386 to 1388 of 2002; 264, 265, 628, 873, 874, 876, 877, 1299, 1554, 1944, 1946 and 2235 of 2004). Mr. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate and Assistant Solicitor General of India, with Mr. Vivek Singla, Senior Panel Counsel, and Mr. Varun Issar, Central Government Counsel, (in RFA Nos. 510, 561 to 567 of 2001; 1386 to 1388 of 2002; 3447 to 3460, 4536 to 4544 & 4765 to 4767 of 2003; 871 to 881; 2059 to 2065, 2194 and 2196 of 2004; 5 to 7, 122 & 123 of 2005; and 240 of 2009) Ms. Seema, Advocate for Ms. Ranjana Shahi, Advocate, (in RFA Nos. 514 of 2001; and 264, 265, 628, 1299, 1554, 1944, 1946 & 2235 of 2004), for Union of India.

ARUN PALLI, J. (ORAL) Vide this judgment, I shall decide a batch of aforementioned 72 appeals, for, the facts involved in all the appeals are similar and the question that requires determination is common. However, the facts are being culled out from RFA No. 510 of 2001.

Vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, 'the Act'), dated 22.2.1991, published on 6.3.1991, land situated in different villages, i.e. Karoli, Kiari, Kuther, Tihari Teeka Phangtoli, Tihari Tikka Nagrota, Nagrota, Seunti, Phangoli, Gagroli and Bungal, was acquired for defence purposes. However, the land that formed part of the revenue estate of village Karoli was de-notified later on 31.5.1994. The Land Acquisition Collector vide a common award, dated 15.3.1993, awarded compensation for the land that was recorded as Chahi @ Rs. 35,000/- per acre; Barani-I @ Rs. 30,000/- per acre; Barani-II @ Rs. 25,000/- per acre; Banjar Jadid @ Rs. 15,000/- per acre; Banjar Qadim @ Rs. 10,000/- per acre; Gair Mumkin @ Rs. 5,000/- per acre; and Gair Mumkin Abadi @ Rs. 35,000/- per acre.

Separate compensation as regards superstructures was awarded by the Collector to the respective landowners. Being aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Collector, the landowners filed objections, under Section 18 of the Act, and sought a reference to the Civil Court. Vide three identical awards, learned Reference Court granted different amount of compensation to the landowners. Vide award dated 22.3.1999, compensation @ Rs. 1,400/- per marla was awarded, uniformly, to the landowners whereas, vide award dated 29.1.

as Barani @ Rs. 42,000/- per acre (Rs.263/- per marla), and for Banjar Qadim @ Rs. 16,800/- (Rs. 105 per marla) and the land that was categorized as Gair Mumkin was assessed @ Rs. 7,000/- per acre (Rs. 44/- per marla) and Gair Mumkin Abadi @ Rs. 42,000/- per acre (Rs. 263/- per marla). Similarly, vide third award dated 17.7.2007, the Reference Court, uniformly, awarded the compensation @ Rs.1,600/- per marla and after including the benefits envisaged under Section 23(1)(a) of the Act, it granted the amount of Rs. 1,830/- per marla.

Both the parties, aggrieved by the compensation assessed and awarded by the Reference Court, preferred appeals to this Court. All those appeals were decided by this Court, vide judgment and order dated 17.2.2016, rendered in RFA No. 2902 of 1999 (Union of India and another v. Major Pritam Singh and another) and other connected matters, vide which this Court enhanced the compensation awarded to the land owners to Rs. 2,300/- per marla. All the appeals were accordingly disposed of. I am reminded to point out at this stage that the appeals involving exclusively the issues as regards compensation for superstructures, were segregated by an order of even date, and that is how these appeals are placed before this Court.

Of the 72 appeals, 64 appeals have been preferred by the Union of India, whereas the rest 8 have been filed by the landowners, seeking enhancement.

Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the Reference Court vide different awards, which are being assailed in these appeals, had enhanced the compensation for superstructures by 10% 15% and in certain

matters upto 25%, upon the amount awarded by the Collector, whereas in RFA No. 240 of 2009 (Union of India and another v. Sheela Devi and another), the Reference Court had awarded merely Rs. 15,000/- to the claimant for the superstructure. It is clarified that Sheela Devi is not in appeal before this Court.

Ordinarily, the landowners claim an exaggerated amount as regards construction that exists on the acquired land. Likewise, the assessment of compensation for superstructure by the State is generally conservative, and is not reflective of its true value or worth. For, the exact value of the structure can never be determined with mathematical precision, therefore, this Court in various decisions has been awarding 25% increase on the value of the superstructure assessed by the Collector as a thumb rule. Faced with this situation and having argued the matter at some length, learned counsel for the parties have reached a consensus; that let 25% increase/enhancement upon the compensation awarded by the Collector be, unilaterally, granted to all the landowners.

Meaning thereby the matters in which the Reference Court itself has awarded 25% increase, the claimants shall not be entitled to any further enhancement whereas, in cases in which no enhancement was granted or the Reference Court awarded 10% or 15% increase upon the compensation assessed by the Collector, the landowners shall be entitled to enhancement, the balance 15% or 10%, as the case may be, but not beyond 25% of the amount assessed or awarded by the Collector. That being so, the landowners shall be entitled to 25% enhancement upon the compensation awarded by the Collector in the manner indicated above.

landowners are disposed of in the manner indicated above. And, as a necessary consequence the appeals filed by the Union of India are dismissed. (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE December 12, 2016 Pkapoor Whether Speaking/Reasoned:

YES / NO Whether Reportable:

YES / NO