Delhi High Court
Horam (Deceased) Thru Lrs. & Ors. vs Uoi & Anr. on 10 January, 2011
Author: P.K.Bhasin
Bench: P.K.Bhasin
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LA APP. NO. 188 OF 2007
Date of Decision: 10th January, 2011
# HORAM(DECEASED) THRU LRS. & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Inder Singh, Advocate
Versus
$ UOI & ANR. ..... Respondents
^ Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate for
UOI.
CORAM:
* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
the Judgment? (No)
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? (No)
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? (No)
JUDGMENT
P.K.BHASIN, J:(ORAL) This appeal was filed by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 17th March, 2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in LAC No. 147/06 whereby compensation in respect of the appellants' land in village Aali after its acquisition was determined at `1,96,940 per bigha. That much compensation was fixed by the Trial Court when a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, LA APP. NO. 188/2007 Page 1 of 4 1894 came to be made by the Land Acquisition Collector at the instance of the appellants since they were claiming compensation @ `50 lakhs per bigha. It appears that the learned Additional District Judge had fixed the market value of the land in village Aali at the aforesaid rate not only in respect of the appellants' land but also in respect of the lands of many other villagers also of Aali whose land had also been acquired by the notification dated 31st October, 1996 and the Award No. 4/98-88 which are the subject matter of the present case also.
2. A large number of appeals came to be filed by different land owners challenging the fixation of market value of their land @ ` 1,96,940 per bigha. The present appeal was also a part of that bunch of appeals. However, the present appeal came to be segregated from those appeals because of death of one of the appellants which necessitated initiation of proceedings for bringing on record his legal representatives. The other appeals came to be disposed of by this Court vide judgment dated 3 rd June, 2010 which is now reported in 2010 (170) Delhi Law Times 371 (Bhule Ram vs. UOI). Vide that judgment the learned single Judge fixed the market value of the land in village Aali @ ` 9,53,130 per acre. LA APP. NO. 188/2007 Page 2 of 4
3. During the course of hearing of the present appeal I was informed by the counsel for the appellants that the said judgment of this Court in Bhule Ram's case has been challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the matter is pending there. However, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that he is not aware of the pendency of any appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court but in any case, the appellants now cannot get compensation more than what has been awarded by this Court in Bhule Ram's case.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants while not disputing the legal position that the aforesaid judgment of this Court in Bhule Ram's case would be applicable to the facts of the present case also submitted that the appellants may also like to challenge the fixation of the market value of their land which has already been fixed in Bhule Ram's case, if they are so advised, and as far as the present appeal is concerned they have nothing more to urge.
5. The operative portion of the judgment of this Court in Bhule Ram's case is to be found in para 43 which is being reproduced below:-
"Accordingly, the appeals are partially allowed. The fair market value of the land situated in village LA APP. NO. 188/2007 Page 3 of 4 Aali in respect of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act dated 31.10.1996, is determined as Rs. 9,53,130/- per acre. Besides the above, the appellants shall also be entitled to 30% solatium on the above market value of the land under Section 23(2) of the Act, 12% additional amount under Section 23 (1-A) of the Act from the date of notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act to the date of the Collector taking possession of the land or making of the award, whichever is earlier. On the enhanced market value, interest will also be paid under Section 28 of the act @ 9% p.a. from the date of dispossession for the first year and thereafter, @ 15% p.a. till the date of tender of compensation. Interest will also be paid on the solatium and additional amount in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunder vs. Union of India reported as 93(2001) DLT 569. The appellants shall also be entitled to proportionate costs in the appeals."
6. The present appeal is, therefore, also disposed of in terms of the aforesaid observations and decision in Bhule Ram's judgment.
January 10, 2011 P.K. BHASIN,J
nk
LA APP. NO. 188/2007 Page 4 of 4