SWATANTER KUMAR,J - (1.) THE Union of India, through the Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh issued two notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, on 29.7.1988 and 4.7.1989 respectively. Land measuring about 283.22 acres was sought to be acquired but as conceded by the learned counsel for the parties except an area of 10.13 acres, rest of the area of the acquired land was denotified as such the award of the Collector and all proceedings subsequent thereto related to 10.13 acres of land in the revenue estate of village Nizampur Kumbra. This land was acquired for the purposes of development of third phase of Chandigarh City. The Land Acquisition Collector after following the due process of law vide his award dated 11.10.1990 awarded compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 74,000/- per acre.
(2.) THE claimants being dis-satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded to them by the learned Collector preferred references under Section 18 of the Act. The learned Additional District Judge permitted the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective claims and finally vide his award/judgment dated 3.10.1997 enhanced the compensation to Rs. 3,87,200/- per acre. Still being dis-satisfied the claimants preferred regular first appeals praying for restoration of the award of the Collector. In the case of Harchal Singh only one reference was answered by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, vide his judgment dated 3.10.1997 which has given rise to two regular first appeals one by the State and other by Harchal Singh, while vide judgment and award dated 21.2.1998 passed in LAC No. 324/96-97 titled as Chhajja Singh v. Union of India six references were answered by the same court. This judgment has given rise to six appeals by the Union of India, four appeals by the claimants and one cross-objection by the claimants in response to the appeal preferred by the Union of India. Both these judgments relate to a common notification, the land from the same revenue estate and the judgment of Harchal Singh was the total basis for granting compensation to the claimants in Chhajja Singh's case. Thus, it would be appropriate to dispose of all these 13 appeals and cross-objection by a common judgment. Harchal Singh's case :
(3.) IN this case the claimants examined four witnesses AW 1 to AW 4 which included Clerk from the Estate Office, AW 2 Patwari and Rattan Singh retired Tehsildar and the claimant. AW 1 proved Ex.A.1, a letter of allotment of plot to the claimant. AW 2 proved site plan Ex.A2, while Ex.A.3 and Ex.A.4, the site plans showing location of the acquired land were also proved by AW 3. The claimants in addition to this evidence produced on record Ex.A.5 to Ex.A.7, Ex.A.11 and A.12 awards and judgments of the Court and Ex.A.8 to A.10 the sale-deeds. The respondents only produced on record the sale-deed Ex.R.1. The learned Additional District Judge, after detailed discussion only relied upon judgment Ex.A.12 and granted to the claimants afore-stated compensation.;