JUDGMENT Rajesh Bindal J.- This order will dispose of a bunch of 275 appeals, as the same arise out of a common acquisition. R.F.A. Nos. 336, 818, 1923 to 1931, 1935, 1963 1964, 2016 to 2019, 2030, 2314 to 2319, 2324, 2341, 2349 to 2355, 2491, 2507, 2634, 2768 to 2773, 3027 to 3039, 3042 to 3048, 3079, 3080 to 3082, 3229, 3230, 3234, 3235, 3282, 3404, 3427, 3468, 3473, 3500, 3517 to 3519, 3570, 3773, 3802 to 3805, 3828 to 3836, 3984 to 3989, 3996 to 4000, 4009, 4010, 4023, 4046, 4117, 4199 and 4200 of 2002, 103, 139, 144, 819, 845, 851, 1052, 1094 to 1096, 1345, 1556, 2572 to 2575, 4547, 4620 to 4624, 4735 to 4737, 4755 to to 4763 of 2003, 54, 194, 202, 207, 314, 320 to 324, 350, 473, 889, 1019, 1187, 1578 to 1581 of 2004, 422, 2075, 2120, 2121 to 2123 of 2005, 1811, 2392 and 3921 of 2007 have been filed by the land owners seeking further enhancement of compensation. R.F.A. Nos. 1726 to 1734, 1803, 1804 of 2002, 1150 to 1156 of 2003, 3902 to 3913 of 2003, 355 to 387, 494, 495, 730 to 742, 869,870, 1682 to 1684, 1686 to 1693, 1788, 2329 of 2004, 564 and 603 of 2005, 1862, 1863 and 3249 of 2006, 2365 and 3394 of 2007 have been filed by Union Territory, Chandigarh seeking reduction of compensation on account of acquisition of land. In R.F.A. Nos. 3027 to 3038 of 2002, 3079 to 3082, 3234, 3235, 3282, 3427, 3517 to 3519, 3773, 3802 to 3805, 3828, 3829, 3831 to 3836, 3984 to 3989, 3996, 3998 to 4000, 4010, 4023, 4046 and 4117 of 2002, 103, 139, 144, 819, 851, 1094, 1096, 1345, 1556, 3902 to 3906 of 2003, cross objections have been filed by Union Territory, Chandigarh seeking reduction of compensation awarded to the land owners. In R.F.A. Nos. 372, 730, 732, 736, 742, 869 and 1686 of 2004 cross objections have been filed by the land owners seeking further enhancement of compensation. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Chandigarh Administration vide notification dated 20.8.1998, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’), acquired 182.87 acres of land forming part of the revenue estate of villages Nizampur Burail, Nizampur Kumbra, Kajheri and Jhumroo for development of third phase of Chandigarh. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Chandigarh Administration vide notification dated 20.8.1998, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’), acquired 182.87 acres of land forming part of the revenue estate of villages Nizampur Burail, Nizampur Kumbra, Kajheri and Jhumroo for development of third phase of Chandigarh. The same was followed by notification dated 16.11.1998, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, ‘the Collector’) assessed the market value of the land at Rs. 8,28,750/- per acre for village Nizampur Kumbra; Rs. 8,18,573/- per acre for village Kajheri, Rs. 7,71,735/- per acre for village Nizampur Burail and Rs. 4,98,102/- per acre for village Jhumroo. The land owners feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Collector, filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land in all the villages at Rs. 13,44,000/- per acre. For low lying area as Khadan, Gair Mumkin Nadi and Choe, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 5,59,992/- per acre. 3. Learned counsels for the land owners submitted that acquisition in the present case was made vide notification dated 20.8.1998. The acquisition was for the purpose of development of third phase of Chandigarh. About one year prior to the acquisition in the present case, a large chunk of land pertaining to the same villages was acquired. The issue regarding determination of compensation for the land earlier acquired vide notification dated 3.7.1997 was subject matter of appeal before this Court in R.F.A. No. 727 of 2001 –Narinder Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, decided on 4.2.2009, whereby this Court assessed the value of the acquired land therein at Rs. 15,46,450/- per acre. They further submitted that in the present case, the learned court below had assessed the value of the acquired land relying upon the award pertaining to the earlier acquisition carried out vide notification dated 3.7.1997 and had granted increase @ 12% thereon, considering the fact that there was a gap of one year, one month and 17 days in the two acquisitions. The submission is that this Court having further enhanced compensation payable for the acquisition carried out vide notification dated 3.7.1997, the land owners should be granted increased compensation for the present acquisition accordingly. 4. The submission is that this Court having further enhanced compensation payable for the acquisition carried out vide notification dated 3.7.1997, the land owners should be granted increased compensation for the present acquisition accordingly. 4. Another submission raised is that the learned court below has gone wrong in not granting same compensation for the entire acquired land and holding some part of the land to be low lying as Khadan, Gair Mumkin Nadi and Choe. The compensation therefor was assessed at a lower rate which was not required to be done, as all the land owners were required to be paid the same amount of compensation. It is for the reason that after acquisition, the land was transferred by Chandigarh Administration to the Cooperative Societies by specially mentioning therein that Chandigarh Administration will not be liable to level the uneven land. There different rate was not fixed for the low lying area. They referred to the statement of PW3- Jasbir Singh. 5. As far as determination of value of fruit bearing trees is concerned, learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the same having been assessed strictly in terms of the judgment of this Court while granting percentage increase in proportionate to the increase in the price index, the determination of compensation by the learned Reference Court being in conformity with the earlier judgments of this Court, the claim for further increase therein does not survive. As regards super structure, the submission is that the learned Reference Court has granted only the value of the super structure, as was determined by the Collector without granting any further increase thereon, which is not in conformity with the judgments of this Court, wherein it has been opined that the land owners are entitled to increase @ 25% on the value of the super structure, as is assessed by the Collector. 6. As far as assessment of Rs. 3,000/- made by the learned court below, on account of some kacha room, learned counsel for the land owners submitted that they are not claiming any further increase thereon. 7. Learned counsels for Union Territory submitted that in the absence of any independent evidence on record, the land owners should not be granted any further increase in the value of land, as assessed by the learned Reference Court, rather, even that amount deserves to be reduced. 7. Learned counsels for Union Territory submitted that in the absence of any independent evidence on record, the land owners should not be granted any further increase in the value of land, as assessed by the learned Reference Court, rather, even that amount deserves to be reduced. In fact, the award of the Collector deserves to be upheld and the amount awarded by the learned court below be set aside. It was further submitted that as far as the claim made by the land owners with regard to categorisation of land as Khadan, Gair Mumkin Nadi and Choe is concerned, the same is not tenable on the basis of the material produced on record by the land owners. The quality of the land was determined in terms of the entries in the revenue record, to which presumption of truth is attached. To rebut the entries in the revenue records, the land owners merely produced oral evidence, which was also self contradictory. The findings of the Collector having not been rebutted successfully, the land owners should not be granted the same compensation, as is determined for the land which is of good quality and at normal level. The value of the land, which is part of Nadi or Choe or which are Khadans is certainly less as compared to the other land. It is the price which a normal buyer is ready to pay to the seller which can be claimed by the land owners as compensation. There is no question of unjust enrichment in the process. The fact that the land was ultimately sold at the same rate is not relevant for the purpose of consideration of the issue regarding valuation of the land on the date of acquisition. 8. It was further submitted that in certain appeals, the land owners have restricted their claim for enhancement to the extent of Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre. In case this court comes to the conclusion that the land owners are entitled to further enhancement in the value of the acquired land, the entitlement of those land owners should be restricted to the claim made by them. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. 3,00,000/- per acre. In case this court comes to the conclusion that the land owners are entitled to further enhancement in the value of the acquired land, the entitlement of those land owners should be restricted to the claim made by them. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. As far as the valuation of acquired land is concerned, I need not go into much details in the present set of appeals for the reason that the value of land pertaining to the same villages acquired for the same purpose vide notification dated 3.7.1997 has already been determined by this Court in Narinder Singh’s case (supra). The acquisition in the present case being one year, one month and 17 days thereafter, the land owners herein can certainly be granted increase for this intervening period. Even in the earlier case, the land owners were granted increase for the time gap in the notifications, while noticing the fact in detail that there had been appreciation of value of land during the intervening period. The learned court below granted 12% increase for this intervening period, relying upon the value as assessed for acquisition of land vide notification dated 3.7.1997. Accordingly, I also apply the same principle and on the value of the land assessed for the acquisition carried out vide notification dated 3.7.1997 in Narinder Singh’s case (supra) at Rs. 15,46,450/- per acre, increase of 12% thereon is granted and adding Rs. 1,85,574/- therein, the value of the acquired land herein comes out to Rs. 17,32,024/- per acre, which is rounded off to Rs. 17,32,000/- per acre. Accordingly, the land owners are held entitled to compensation @ Rs. 17,32,000/- per acre for the land except which is recorded as gair mumkin Nadi, Choe and Khadan. 10. As far as different valuation of the land which is recorded as Gair Mumkin Nadi, Choe and Khadan in the revenue records is concerned, in my opinion, sufficient evidence has not been brought on record by the land owners to rebut the findings recorded by the Collector. A regular survey of the area is conducted and khasra girdawaris are prepared. The Collector had recorded the quality of the land on the basis of khasra girdawaris for Rabi/Kharif, 1998. The acquisition in the present case was also carried out in the year 1998. A regular survey of the area is conducted and khasra girdawaris are prepared. The Collector had recorded the quality of the land on the basis of khasra girdawaris for Rabi/Kharif, 1998. The acquisition in the present case was also carried out in the year 1998. It was recorded in the khasra girdawaris that some part of the land pertaining to villages Nizampur Kumbra and Nizampur Burail was Gair Mumkin Nadi, Choe and Khadan. Considering the deficiency in the value of this quality of land, the learned Reference Court assessed less amount as compensation for the acquisition thereof which is Rs. 5,59,992/- per acre. Learned counsel for the land owners have merely referred to the statement of PW3-Jasbir Singh to show that the entire land was of one level, which was quite close to the road level. However, this witness in his cross-examination admitted that there may be some low lying area. In fact, he demolished his statement made in the examination-in-chief, where he stated that the entire land was of same level. The quality of land is evident from the revenue records. There being no documentary evidence on record, the findings recorded by the learned court below on the quality of land cannot be faulted with. As far as value thereof is concerned, the learned Reference Court had determined the same at Rs. 5,59,992/- per acre, in comparison to the value of other land which was determined at Rs. 13,44,000/- per acre. 11. As the value of other land has been enhanced by this Court to Rs. 17,32,000/- per acre, in the same proportion, the value of the land which is recorded as Gair Mumkin Nadi, Choe and Khadan is enhanced and the same comes out to Rs. 7,21,656/- per acre, which is rounded off to Rs. 7,21,700/- per acre. As far as the claim made by learned counsel for Union Territory regarding restricting of claim made by the land owners in the appeals before this Court is concerned, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. 7,21,656/- per acre, which is rounded off to Rs. 7,21,700/- per acre. As far as the claim made by learned counsel for Union Territory regarding restricting of claim made by the land owners in the appeals before this Court is concerned, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. In Bhimasha v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and another, (2008) 10 SCC 797, the issue under consideration before Hon’ble the Supreme Court was as to whether the claim for enhancement is to be restricted to the amount claimed in the memo of appeal, where Hon’ble the Supreme Court opined that the appellant’s omission to make appropriate claim after paying the requisite court fee cannot be castigated as one lacking bonafide. It was further opined that the land owners therein would be entitled to the same amount of compensation, as was determined payable to other land owners. However, the same shall be subject to payment of court fee. Accordingly, in the present appeals also, where appropriate amount of court fee has not been paid, the award of the enhanced amount in favour of the land owners shall be subject to payment of difference of court fee. 12. The appeals and cross-objections are disposed of in the above terms. ----------------------