Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1327 (PNJ)

Jumla Malkan v. Union Territory, Chandigarh

2009-08-05

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2009
JudgmentJudgment Vinod K.Sharma, J. 1. CM No. 7104-CI of 2008 1. This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been moved for condoning the delay of 105 days in filing the appeal. 2. It has been averred in the application, that due to the acquisition of the land of the appellants, were left with no source of income, and it took time to arrange money for affixing the court fee. It has further been averred, that the connected appeal against the impugned order already stand entertained by this Court. It is further averred, that the delay is for the reasons, beyond the control of the appellants and is bona fide. The application is supported by an affidavit. 3. For the reasons stated in the application, C.M. is allowed and the delay of 105 days in filing the appeal is condoned. CM No. 7105-CI of 2008 4. This application under Rule 2 Part C, Chapter-I Volume V of the Rules & Orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, has been moved for permission to appellants No. 22 to 25 to file appeal as LRs of Deep Singh S/o Sh. Atma Singh. 5. Ms. Jai Shree Thakur, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-U.T., Chandigarh. 6. For the reasons stated in the application, C.M. is allowed and appellants No. 20 to 25 are permitted to file the appeal as legal representatives of deceased-Deep Singh. RFA No. 3538 & CM No. 7103-CI of 2008 7. With the consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up for hearing. 8. The appellant-land owners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, to challenge the award passed by the learned reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act). 9. The facts in brief are that, by way of notification dated 23.12.1999, issued under Section 4 of the Act, the Union Territory of Chandigarh showed its intention to acquire the land measuring 14.61 acre for setting up of Chandigarh Botanical Garden. After rejection of the objections filed under Section 5-A, notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 14.3.2000. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the land at Rs. 5,43,636/- (Rupees five lac forty three thousand six hundred thirty six only) per acre. 10. The land owners being dissatisfied, sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. 11. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the land at Rs. 5,43,636/- (Rupees five lac forty three thousand six hundred thirty six only) per acre. 10. The land owners being dissatisfied, sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. 11. The reference Court by way of impugned award dated 20.7.2007 enhanced the market value to Rs. 15.50 lac (Rupees fifteen lac fifty thousand only). 12. Some of the land owners being dissatisfied with the award of the reference Court filed an appeal in this Court. One such appeal being RFA No. 1525 of 2005 (Dalbir Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh) 13. It is agreed that this appeal is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in RFA No. 1525 of 2005 titled Dalbir Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, decided on 26.3.2009. The order passed by this Court in RFA No. 1525 of 2005 reads as under :- "The fact that no construction activity can be carried out in Chandigarh urban controlled area on account of restrictions imposed under the Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act1, 1952 is not disputed. Meaning thereby that any body who buys land in the periphery has to use the same only for the purpose of agriculture, though it may have commercial potential, but that can be exploited by the Administration after the acquisition of land and the same is being done. This is the beginning of acquisition of land in this area. The value which will be determined for the land acquired in the present set of cases will certainly be a guiding factor for any future acquisition in the area. What has been found on a perusal of the evidence on record, as has been referred to at the time of arguments is that only two sale deeds were produced. The same were not located on any of the site plans produced on record. Reliance was sought to be placed upon another sale deed for a land measuring 1-1/2 marlas which, according to the learned counsel for the land owners, was executed in terms of a decree passed in favour of the vendee therein on the basis of an agreement to sell, which was executed much prior to the acquisition of land, but judgment and decree was not produced on record. Further, though at the time of arguments it was stated that value of the land in the neighbouring area forming part of the State of Punjab was fetching much more value at that time, as compared to the value as assessed by the learned court below considering the fact that there was no restriction of construction activity, but no evidence was produced on record to substantiate the plea." Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, it is a fit case to set aside the impugned award passed by the learned court below and refer the matter back for fresh consideration by granting opportunity to both the parties to produce further evidence, if they so desire so that none of the parties suffer on account of any lapse committed earlier by not producing the evidence on record which though is stated to be relevant at the time of arguments. It is also for the reason that the land owners are being deprived of their land holdings and source of livelihood, for which they deserve to be compensated adequately keeping in view shooting land prices. Ordered accordingly. Parties through their counsels are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Chandigarh on 16.5.2009 for further proceedings. The learned District Judge may either keep the references with him or entrust the same to any other Additional District Judge. It is further directed that the amount of compensation already paid to the land owners in terms of the impugned award shall not be recovered back from them. However, the same shall abide by any final order passed by the learned Reference Court afresh." 14 This appeal being squarely covered by the decision of this Court in RFA No. 1525 of 2005, is allowed in the same terms. 15. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before reference Court on 15.9.2009.