R.L.ANAND, J. - (1.) BY this judgment I dispose of three regular first appeals - No. 1339 of 1996 (Bopal Singh and others v. Union of India), No. 1340 of 1996 (Tara Singh v. Union of India) and No. 1341 of 1996 (Jaspal Singh and others v. Union of India), as in my opinion all the three appeals having common question of law and fact can be disposed of by one judgment.
(2.) THE land of the appellants was situated in village Nizampur Burail, which was acquired vide notification dated 8.7.1988 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter as 'the Act'). The notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 4.7.1989. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation @ Rs. 66,000/- per acre. The appellants filed reference under Section 18 of the Act and the compensation was enhanced to Rs. 1,90,000/- per acre. Not satisfied the preset appeal. The learned Counsel for the appellants submits that it is a case of discrimination between the appellants and other owners of the land situated in the same village. He submitted that the references under Section 18 of the Act pertaining to the land of three villages were decided by three different Courts. He further submitted that while deciding the land reference of Bhajan Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, the Court of Additional District Judge, Chandigarh awarded compensation to the land-owners of village Nizampur Burail @ Rs. 3,87,200/- per acre vide award dated 2.9.1997. The learned Counsel also submitted that the Government did not challenge the decision dated 2.9.1997, rather Bhajan Singh, land-owner, filed R.F.A. No. 2511 of 1997 for enhancement of compensation. In this case, the compensation was enhanced to Rs. 4,33,370/- by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar vide judgment dated 29.7.1999 and against this judgment L.P.A. is pending. The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the instance of the order dated 29.7.1999 cannot be acted upon in view of the L.P.A. filed by the Government of India against the judgment of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar and in these circumstances the compensation which has been awarded by the learned Additional District Judge is correct.
(3.) THE argument raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent is partly correct. The judgment of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar is sub-judice and in these circumstances the instance of the judgment dated 29.7.1999 cannot be taken for the advantage of the appellants. But against the award dated 2.9.1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh there is no appeal by the Government, therefore, to this extent the instance can be acted upon, though by a subordinate Court. In any rate, the compensation cannot be reduced less than Rs. 3,87,200/-. The learned Counsel for the appellants also invites my attention to the award dated 6.9.1999 passed by Mr. R.C. Godara, Additional District Judge, Chandigarh and submits that even for the land of village Nizampur Burail this very rate has been granted. Therefore, this instance can be safely acted upon. There is merit in the contention of learned Counsel for the appellants. In this view of the matter, these appeals are partly allowed and the compensation of the land of the appellants stands enhanced @ Rs. 3,87,200/- per acre. The appellants shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits under Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeals partly allowed.;