HC dismisses UT plea against hike in Maloya compensation

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, September 21

Three decades after land acquisition process was initiated in Maloya village, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed five appeals filed by the Union Territory of Chandigarh against the enhancement of compensation to Rs 2,24,000 per acre from Rs 85,000 per acre.

In its appeals placed before the Bench of Justice GS Sandhawalia, the Administration had mounted a challenge to compensation enhancement order dated November 12, 2002, passed by the Chandigarh Reference Court.

Going into the background, Justice Sandhawalia observed the notification in question was issued on February 4, 1988, for land falling in Maloya village. The land was acquired for “Site and Service Scheme”.

Enhancing the amount, the Reference Court placed reliance on an earlier decision in the case of “Amrao Singh and others versus UT, Chandigarh”, which was decided on February 4, 1997, wherein Rs 2,00,000 per acre was fixed as the market value.

The Reference Court accordingly granted the benefit of 12 per cent increase as general appreciation by placing reliance on another judgment of the High Court.

The Bench added that UT senior standing counsel Suvir Sehgal fairly pointed out that the land owner in the Amrao Singh case had preferred an appeal in 1997. It was decided in October 2010 and the amount of Rs 2,00,000 granted was upheld in terms of another decision passed in the case of “Jit Ram and others versus UT, Chandigarh”.

Justice Sandhawalia observed that a co-ordinate Bench dealt with two acquisitions of the same revenue estate, Maloya village, in Jit Ram’s case. He added that the counsel could not point out that the award was challenged by the UT. A perusal of the order would show that the Land Acquisition Collector had also determined the market value at Rs 85,000 per acre, which was also done in the Amrao Singh case. The difference of acquisition was just over a year. Therefore, 12 per cent appreciation granted cannot be faulted in view of a Supreme Court judgement holding that appreciation was to be granted if the land was situated in an urban area as there would be potential for increase. “Undisputedly, the land is part of the developed area and also been acquired for the Site and Service Scheme and, therefore, falls in the planned area and the 12 per cent increase which has been granted for one year cannot be faulted,” said Sandhawalia. 

The Bench added that the findings recorded were based on the settled principle as the award of the same village is a relevant piece of evidence and has rightly been taken into consideration by the Reference Court. Accordingly, there was no merit in the appeals.