Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1222 (PNJ)

Charan Singh v. Union of India

2003-09-01

JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR

body2003
JUDGMENT J.S. Khehar, J. - In order to rehabilitate slum dwellers of Kumhar Colony in Sector 25, Chandigarh, the Chandigarh Administration issued notification dated 13.6.1980 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred it as the Act), acquiring an area measuring 1341 acres of land in village Dadu Majra. Notice under Section 9 of the Act was issued on 18.6.1980. Its perusal reveals that the land was being acquired for development of the city of Chandigarh. The Land Acquisition Collector, Chandigarh allowed compensation of the claimants @ Rs. 33,000/- per acre by his award dated 23.7.1980. 2. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Collector, Chandigarh, applications were filed under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation. The Reference Court accepted the claim petitions filed by the land owners by holding that they were entitled to compensation @ Rs. 70,000/- per acre, besides solatium @ 15% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation and 6% interest per annum on the amount payable from the date of taking over possession till the date of realisation. 3. A bunch of ten Regular First Appeals bearing Nos. 409 of 1984, 410 of 1984, 412 of 1984, 621 of 1984, 622 of 1984, 623 of 1984, 624 of 1984, 2331 of 1987 and 2403 of 1987 arises out to the same acquisition proceedings initiated in pursuance of the publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act, dated 13.6.1980. Out of the aforesaid Appeals, Regular First Appeal Nos. 409 of 1984, 410 of 1984, 411 of 1984, 412 of 1984 and 2403 of 1987 have been filed by the land owners whereas Regular First Appeal Nos. 621 of 1984, 622 of 1984, 623 of 1984, 624 of 1984 and 2331 of 1987 have been filed by the Union of India. Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that identical questions of law and fact arise in all these appeals. Accordingly, this bunch of ten appeals is being disposed of through this common judgment, which is being rendered in Regular First Appeal No. 409 of 1984. 4. Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that identical questions of law and fact arise in all these appeals. Accordingly, this bunch of ten appeals is being disposed of through this common judgment, which is being rendered in Regular First Appeal No. 409 of 1984. 4. Ordinarily, compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, is based on the market value of the acquired land, which is determined by calculating the average value of land, from sale transactions of similar land, in close proximity of time (relatable to the notification under Section 4 of the Act). In the instant case, however, learned counsel for the land owners had not relied on any sale transaction whatsoever in order to canvass the claim of the appellant for higher compensation. He has merely relied upon Ex. P-2 to P-4. Exs. P-2 and P-3 are judgments rendered by this Court, whereas, Ex. P-4 is a judgement rendered under Section 18 of the Act by a Reference Court. The common factor in Exs. P-2 to P-4 is that they all deal with the determination of compensation for lands acquired out of the villages surrounding Chandigarh for the development of the city of Chandigarh. 5. Ex. P-2 is a judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in "Surjit Singh and others v. Union of India and others" (RFA No. 1815 of 1980, decided on 26.8.1981). In the aforesaid case, land in village Burail was acquired for the development of Sector 45 in the city of Chandigarh. Despite the fact that the acquired land was agricultural land, in view of the potentiality of the land for urban development, it was concluded that its agricultural use had ceased to be of any significance for determination of its market value. For the same reasons, the classification of the acquired land as Chahi, Barani, Gair Mumkin etc. was considered to be of no consequence. On the basis of the potentiality of the land itself, which was admittedly being acquired for the development of the city of Chandigarh, this Court arrived at the conclusion that the land owners were entitled to compensation @ Rs. 62,000/- per acre besides the statutory solatium and interest @ 15% and 6%, respectively. 6. Reliance has also been placed on Ex. 62,000/- per acre besides the statutory solatium and interest @ 15% and 6%, respectively. 6. Reliance has also been placed on Ex. P-3, which is a judgment rendered by this Court in "Jaswant Singh and others v. Union of India and others" (LPA No. 1207 of 1981, decided on 22.9.1982). While relying on Ex. P-3, learned counsel for the land owners invited the attention of the Court to the fact that the Letters Patent Bench in the aforesaid case evaluated the market price of the land acquired from various village situated around Chandigarh for the development of the city of Chandigarh. So as to notice the crux of his submissions, relevant details are being noticed hereunder : (i) Market value of land of village Attawa was acquired through a Notification under Section 4 of the Act, dated 16.12.1977, for setting up Sector 43 in the city of Chandigarh. The Land Acquisition Collector had allowed varied rates of compensation between Rs. 8400/- to 21,000/- per acre on the basis of the quality of the acquired land. The said compensation was enhanced to a flat rate of Rs. 36,000/- per acre by the Reference Court, which was further enhanced to Rs. 40,000/- per acre by a Single Judge of this Court while adjudicating upon the Regular First Appeal arising therefrom. Vide Ex. P-3 i.e. the judgement rendered by a Letters Patent Bench of this Court, the market value of the acquired land was determined at the flat rate of Rs. 62,000/- per acre. (ii) Market value of land of village Kajheri was acquired through a Notification under Section 4 of the Act, dated 16.12.1977, for completing Sector 43 in the city of Chandigarh. The Land Acquisition Collector had allowed varied rates of compensation between Rs. 8400/- to 21,000/- per acre on the basis of the quality of the acquired land. The said compensation was enhanced to a flat rate of Rs. 36,000/- per acre by the Reference Court, which was further enhanced to Rs. 51,000/- per acre by a Single Judge of this Court while adjudicating upon the Regular First Appeal arising therefrom. Vide Ex. P-3 i.e. the judgement rendered by a Letters Patent Bench of this Court, the market value of the acquired land was determined at the flat rate of Rs. 62,000/- per acre. 51,000/- per acre by a Single Judge of this Court while adjudicating upon the Regular First Appeal arising therefrom. Vide Ex. P-3 i.e. the judgement rendered by a Letters Patent Bench of this Court, the market value of the acquired land was determined at the flat rate of Rs. 62,000/- per acre. (iii) Market value of land of village Burail was acquired through a Notification under Section 4 of the Act, dated 2.2.1978, for setting up Sector 44 in the city of Chandigarh. The Land Acquisition Collector had allowed varied rates of compensation between Rs. 8400/- to 21,000/- per acre on the basis of quality of the acquired land. The said compensation was enhanced to a flat rate of Rs. 35,000/- per acre by the Reference Court. Vide Ex. P-3 i.e. the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court, while adjudicating upon the Regular First Appeal arising therefrom, the market value of the acquired land was determined at the flat rate of Rs. 62,000/- per acre. (iv) Market value of land of village Maloya was acquired through a Notification under Section 4 of the Act, dated 23.2.1978, for augmentation of water supply of southern sectors in the city of Chandigarh. The Land Acquisition Collector had allowed varied rates of compensation between Rs. 8400/- to 21,000/- per acre on the basis of the quality of the acquired land. The said compensation was enhanced to a flat rate of Rs. 36,000/- per acre by the Reference Court. Vide Ex. P-3 i.e. the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court, while adjudicating upon the Regular First Appeal arising therefrom, the market value of the acquired land was determined at the flat rate of Rs. 62,000/- per acre. (v) Market value of land of village Dadu Majra was acquired through a Notification under Section 4 of the Act, dated 16.5.1978, for construction of water works for the city of Chandigarh. The Land Acquisition Collector had allowed varied rates of compensation between Rs. 4650/- to 22,000/- per acre on the basis of the quality of the acquired land. The said compensation was enhanced to a flat rate of Rs. 37,000/- per acre by the Reference Court. Vide Ex. The Land Acquisition Collector had allowed varied rates of compensation between Rs. 4650/- to 22,000/- per acre on the basis of the quality of the acquired land. The said compensation was enhanced to a flat rate of Rs. 37,000/- per acre by the Reference Court. Vide Ex. P-3 i.e. the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court, while adjudicating upon the Regular First Appeal arising therefrom, the market value of the acquired land was determined at the flat rate of Rs. 62,000/- per acre. (vi) Market value of land of village Palsora was acquired through a Notification under Sector 4 of the Act, dated 17.7.1978, for construction of a road beyond Section 41, Chandigarh for connecting the city of Chandigarh with Mohali Town. The Land Acquisition Collector had allowed varied rates of compensation between Rs. 19,500/- to 21,000/- per acre on the basis of the quality of the acquired land. The said compensation was enhanced to a flat rate of Rs. 40,000/- per acre by the Reference Court. Vide Ex. P-3 i.e. the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court, while adjudicating upon the Regular First Appeal arising therefrom, the market value of the acquired land was determined at the flat rate of Rs. 62,000/- per acre. (vii) Market value of land of village Maloya was acquired through a Notification under Section 4 of the Act, dated 17.7.1978, for construction of a road in the city of Chandigarh. The Land Acquisition Collector had allowed varied rates of compensation between Rs. 10,000/- to 24,000/- per acre on the basis of the quality of the acquired land. The said compensation was enhanced to a flat rate of Rs. 36,000/- per acre by the Reference Court. Vide Ex. P-3 i.e. the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court, while adjudicating upon the Regular Bench Appeal arising therefrom, the market value of the acquired land was determined at the flat rate of Rs. 62,000/- per acre. Relying on the factual position noticed in (i) to (vii) above, learned counsel for the land owners emphatically submitted that flat rate of compensation must be awarded for the land acquired in the instant case as well, and no distinction can be made on the basis of the quality of the agricultural land acquired. It is further contended on the strength of the judgment Ex. It is further contended on the strength of the judgment Ex. P-3 that it was equally unjustified to make a distinction on the basis of the village from which the land was acquired. In this behalf, it is submitted that once it had been substantiated that the land acquired was for the development of the city of Chandigarh, its market value was liable to be determined at a flat rate, based on its potentially for being put to use for urbanisation and that too in the development of the city of Chandigarh. Relying on the factual position noticed in (i) to (vii) above, learned counsel for the land owners pointed out that for land acquired in the villages of Attawa, Kajheri, Burail, Maloya, Dadu Majra and Palsora, through various notifications issued in 1977/1978, the land owners were held to be entitled to a flat rate of compensation of Rs. 62,000/- per acre. In this context, learned counsel for the land owners further pointed out that for purposes of compensation, land acquired from village Dadu Majra (which is also the subject matter of controversy in the present appeals) was equated for purposes of compensation with other villages including village Kajheri. 7. Relying on Ex. P-4 i.e. a judgment rendered by the Reference Court in "Labh Singh and other v. Union of India" decided on 12.3.1982, learned counsel for the land owners pointed out that the market value of the land of village Kajheri was acquired through a notification under Section 4 of the Act, dated 3.10.1979, for development of Sector 42 in the city of Chandigarh. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation for the aforesaid land at the flat rate of Rs. 26,000/- per acre. The said compensation was enhanced to Rs. 80,000/- per acre, with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of possession of the land was taken till the payment thereof, besides 15% compulsory acquisition charges, by the Reference Court. 8. On the basis of judgment Ex.P-2 "Surjit Singh and others v. Union of India and others" (RFA No. 1815 of 1980, decided on 26.8.1981), Ex. P-3 Jaswant Singh and others v. Union of India and others" (LPA No. 1207 of 1981, decided on 22.9.1982) and Ex. 8. On the basis of judgment Ex.P-2 "Surjit Singh and others v. Union of India and others" (RFA No. 1815 of 1980, decided on 26.8.1981), Ex. P-3 Jaswant Singh and others v. Union of India and others" (LPA No. 1207 of 1981, decided on 22.9.1982) and Ex. P-4 "Labh Singh and others v. Union of India and others" (decided by the Reference Court on 12.3.1982), learned counsel for the land owners submits that the compensation to be awarded to the land owners should be determined on the basis of the potentiality of the land. It is pointed out that for the development of the city of Chandigarh, this Court allowed compensation at the flat of Rs. 62,000/- per acre (in respect of the land acquired on the basis of notifications issued in 1977 and 1978). 9. Learned counsel for the land owners also points out that the instant appeal relates to the acquisition of land on the basis of a notification (issued under Section 4 of the Act) in 1980 and, therefore, due weightage should be given for escalation of the market value of the land during the period of these 2/3 years. Learned counsel for the land owners, accordingly, pleads for an appropriate addition to market value of land determined by this Court vide judgment Ex.P-3. In order to assist this Court on the quantum of enhancement of compensation that should be granted to the land owners on account of escalation which must have taken place during 2/3 years, learned counsel for the land owners has invited the attention of this Court to the judgement Ex.P-4 wherein for land acquired through a notification issued under Section 4 of the Act dated 3.10.1979, the land owners were held entitled to compensation at the flat rate of Rs. 80,000/- per acre. Since the notification (under Section 4 of the Act), in the present case, was issued on 13.6.1980, learned counsel for the land owners seeks a further addition of about Rs. 5000/- per acre. The cumulative effect of the contention of the learned counsel for the land owners is that the land owners be paid compensation at the flat rate of Rs. 85,000/- per acre on the basis of the potentiality of the land. 10. 5000/- per acre. The cumulative effect of the contention of the learned counsel for the land owners is that the land owners be paid compensation at the flat rate of Rs. 85,000/- per acre on the basis of the potentiality of the land. 10. Learned counsel representing the Union of India, however, contended that the Reference Court has granted excessive compensation to the land owners and, therefore, pleaded for the reduction of the same. Learned counsel for the Union of India, however, could not invite the attention of this Court to any sale transaction in close vicinity of the acquired land in order to substantiate his claim that the Reference Court had granted excessive compensation to the land owners. Interestingly, neither the land owners nor the Union of India led any evidence before the Reference Court had granted excessive compensation to the land owners. Interestingly, neither the land owners nor the Union of India led any evidence before the Reference Court in respect of sale transactions conducted in the vicinity of the acquired land, at or about the time of the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. 11. According to the learned counsel representing the land owners sale transactions in the vicinity of the acquired land on or around the date of issuance of notice for acquisition under Section 4 of the Act, were clearly irrelevant since the agricultural nature of the acquired land had ceased to be relevant for the determination of the market price thereof. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the land owners that the price of the acquired land is bound to be determined on the basis of its potentiality, namely, proximity of the acquired land with the city of Chandigarh as well as the object/purpose for which the land was acquired i.e. for the development of the city of Chandigarh. In order to evaluate the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the land owners, reference must necessarily be made to Section 23 of the Act, as is applicable to the territories falling in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory of Chandigarh. Section 23 of the Act as notified originally, was to the following effect. - "23. Matters to be considered in determining compensation. Section 23 of the Act as notified originally, was to the following effect. - "23. Matters to be considered in determining compensation. - (1) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration - first, the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the [notification under Section 4, sub-section (1)], secondly, the damage sustained by the persons interested, by reason of the taking of any standing crops or trees which may be on the land at the time of the Collectors taking possession thereof; thirdly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of Collectors taking possession of the land by reason of severing such land from his other land; fourthly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collectors taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, movable and immovable in any other manner, or his earnings; fifthly, if, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Collector, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business; the reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such change; and sixthly, the damage (if any) bona fide resulting from the diminution of the profits of the land between the time of the publication of the declaration under Section 6 and the time of the Collectors taking possession of the land. b[(1A) In addition to the market value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per annum on such market value of the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4, sub-section (1), in respect of such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier; Explanation. - In computing the period referred to in this sub- section any period or periods during which the proceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction by the order of any Court shall be excluded,] (2) In addition to the market value of the land as above provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum of [thirty per centum] on such market value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition." In 1922, the following amendment to the aforesaid provision was made for the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory of Chandigarh :- "(1) In clause first and clause sixthly of sub-section (1) of Section 23, for the words "publication of the declaration relating thereto under Section 6" and the words "publication of the declaration under Section 6" shall be deemed to be substituted -- (a) if the land is being acquired under sub-section (3) of Section 32 of the Act by the words "Issue of the notice under sub-section (3) of Section 32 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, and (b) in any other case, the words "first publication of the notification under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922". (2) The full stop at the end of sub-section (2) of Section 23 shall be deemed to be changed to a colon and the following proviso shall be deemed to be added :- Provided that this sub-section shall not apply to any land acquired under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922." (3) At the end of Section 23, the following shall be deemed to be added, namely. - "(3) For the purpose of clause first of sub-section (1) of this Section, - (a) the market value of the land shall be the market value according to the use to which the land was put at the date with reference to which the market value is to be determined under that clause; (b) if it be shown that before such date, the owner of the land had in good faith taken active steps and incurred expenditure to secure a more profitable use of the same, further, compensation based on his actual loss may be paid to him; (c) if any person without the permission of the Trust required by sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, has erected, re- erected, added to or altered any building or wall so as to make the same project beyond a street alignment or building line duly prescribed by the Trust, then any increase in the market value resulting from such erection, re-erection, addition or alteration shall be disregarded; (d) if the market value has been increased by means of any improvement made by the owner or his predecessor-in-interest within two years before the aforesaid date, such increase shall be disregarded unless it be proved that the improvement so made was made in good faith and not in contemplation of proceedings for the acquisition of the land being taken under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922; (e) if the market value is specifically in consequence of the land being put to a use which is unlawful or contrary to public policy, that use shall be disregarded, and the market value shall be deemed to be the market value of the land if put to ordinary use; and (f) when the owner of the land or building has after the passing of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, and within two years preceding the date with reference to which the market value is to be determined, made a return under any enactment in force of the rent of the land or building, the rent of the land or building shall not in any case be deemed to be greater than the rent shown in the latest return so made, save as the Court may otherwise direct, and the market value may be determined on the basis of such rent; Provided that where any addition to, or improvement of, the land or building has been made after the date of such latest return and previous to the date with reference to which the market value is to be determined, the Court may take into consideration any increase in the letting value of the land due to such addition or improvement." For the purposes of the present controversy, Section 23(3) of the Act, to my mind, is most relevant, according to which, the market value of land has to be determined with reference to the use of which the land was put on the date of the issuance of the relevant notification. Learned counsel for the land owners acknowledges the fact that the acquired land was being used for agricultural purposes. Therefore, in terms of Section 23 of the Act (amended for the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory of Chandigarh), the price of the land acquired, should have been determined on the basis of its market value as agricultural land. Section 23(3) of the Act mandates the determination of the market value of the acquired land on the basis of parameters diametrically contrary to the parameters adopted by this Court in the judgement Ex. P-3 (Jaswant Singh and others v. Union of India and others, LPA No. 1207, decided on 22.9.1982) as also the judgment Ex. P-4 (Labh Singh and others v. Union of India and others, decided by the Reference Court on 12.3.1982). It is imperative to point out that in the judgments relied upon by the land owners (Ex. P-2 to P-4), the Courts while adjudicating upon the claims made by the rival parties, did not refer to Section 23(3) of the Act introduced for the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory of Chandigarh by effecting an amendment in Section 23 of the Act in 1922. The aforesaid statutory provision prescribes a mode for determining the market value of the acquired land in a manner clearly contrary to the yardstick adopted in the judgments Exs. P-2 to P-4. Since the attention of the Courts was not drawn to Section 23(3) of the Act in judgments Ex. P-2 to P-4, the same cannot be treated as a binding precedent or ratio decidendi for the purposes of determination of market value under the Land Acquisition Act, in case of acquisition of land in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory of Chandigarh. The judgments Exs. P-2 to P-4 must, therefore, be considered to have been decided per incuriam as the same were rendered without reference to Section 23(3) of the Act as applicable to the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory of Chandigarh. The judgments Exs. P-3 and P-4 proceed on the premises that the market value of the acquired land cannot be determined with reference to the nature of the acquired land, but had to be determined solely with reference to the potentially thereof. The judgments Exs. P-3 and P-4 proceed on the premises that the market value of the acquired land cannot be determined with reference to the nature of the acquired land, but had to be determined solely with reference to the potentially thereof. It is not the case of the learned counsel for the land owners that Section 23(3) of the Act is ultra vires the Constitution. Such a submission could not have been entertained at the hands of the land owners as there is no challenge to the validity of the aforesaid provision in the grounds raised by the appellants before this Court. Even during the course of hearing when the attention of the learned counsel for the land owners was invited to Section 23(3) of the Act, he did not raise any challenge thereto. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the Court is liable to proceed to determine the compensation of the acquired land keeping in mind the parameters defined in Section 23 of the Act. The Apex Court has repeatedly emphasised that the High Court cannot suo motu declare a provision invalid in the absence of a categoric prayer to the aforesaid effect. In other words, in the absence of specific pleading, challenging vires, it is not open to this Court to suo motu evaluate the vires of Section 23(3) of the Act as applicable to the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory of Chandigarh. For the aforesaid purpose, reference may be made to the judgments rendered by the Apex court in "The State of Andhra Pradesh and another v. K. Jayaraman and others" 1975(1) SLR, 668, "Rajpur Ruda Meha and others v. State of Gujarat" AIR 1980 SC 1707 and "Bank of Baroda v. Rednam Nagachaya Devi" JT 1989(3) SC 597. 12. In view of the mandate of Section 23(3) of the Act, the only relevant consideration while determining the market value of the acquired land is to do so keeping in mind the use to which the acquired land was being out at the date of issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act i.e. on 13.6.1980. Only sale transactions of land in the vicinity of the acquired land used for the same purpose could have been relevant for the assessment of market value thereof. Only sale transactions of land in the vicinity of the acquired land used for the same purpose could have been relevant for the assessment of market value thereof. In the absence of any evidence of a sale transaction of property located in the vicinity of acquired land, being used for agricultural purpose, at or about the time of the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act, it is not possible for this Court to accept the claim of the land owners for a further enhancement of the compensation determined by the Reference Court. 13. The contention of the learned counsel for the Union of India, on the other hand, is for reducing the market value of the acquired land as determined by the Reference Court. The aforesaid contention is equally misplaced. Vide judgement Ex.P-3, this Court, while determining the market value of agricultural land of village Dadu Majra acquired through notification under Section 4 of the Act, dated 16.5.1978, arrived at the conclusion that the land owners were entitled to the flat rate of Rs. 62,000/- per acre. The aforesaid value of agricultural land acquired from Village Dadu Majra is stated to have become final and the same has been accepted by the Union of India. The land (which is the subject matter of the controversy in this appeal), was acquired through a notification under Section 4 of the Act, dated 13.6.1980. For the escalation of costs during the intervening period of two years, the land owners should essentially be entitled to further compensation. The Reference Court concluded by holding that the land owners were entitled to compensation @ Rs. 70,000/- per acre, besides solatium @ 15% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation and 6% interest per annum on the amount payable from the date of taking over possession till the date of realisation. In other words, the land owners have been granted escalation of costs to the tune of Rs. 8,000/- per acre for the intervening period of two years, proceeding on the assumption based on judgment Ex.P-3 that the price of agricultural land in village Dadu Majra acquired on 16.5.1978, was valued at Rs. 62,000/- per acre. It is, therefore, obvious that for the two years, the Reference Court granted enhancement of about thirteen and a half percent to the land owners. The same can neither be considered to be excessive nor less. 62,000/- per acre. It is, therefore, obvious that for the two years, the Reference Court granted enhancement of about thirteen and a half percent to the land owners. The same can neither be considered to be excessive nor less. The compensation awarded by the Reference Court, to my mind, calls for no interference. In the aforesaid view of the matter, it is not possible for this Court even to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the Union of India that the compensation awarded to the land owners needs a downward revision. For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in the appeals. The same are, accordingly, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.