Delhi High Court
Bal Krishan Kapahi & Ors. vs Union Of India on 4 February, 2011
Author: P.K. Bhasin
Bench: P.K.Bhasin
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No. 582 of 1994
% Date of Decision: 4th February, 2011
! BAL KRISHAN KAPAHI & ORS. ....Appellants
Through: Mr. Deepak Khosla and Mr. Inder Singh,
Advocates
versus
$ UNION OF INDIA ...Respondent
^ Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate
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 preferred against the judgment and decree dated 7th December, 1993 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in LAC No. 207/1993 arising out of reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act made by the Land Acquisition Collector in respect RFA No. 429/1994 Page 1 of 4 of some lands falling in different khasras in village Tigri which had been acquired vide Award no. 24/73-74 pursuant to the notifications dated 28- 02-1972 and 15-06-1972 under Sections 4 and 6 respectively. The market value of the land in question was determined by the Land Acquisition Collector at Rs. 3/- per sq. yd. for levelled land and Rs. 2.5/- per sq. yd. in respect of the lands which had pits. Since the land owners were dissatisfied with the compensation awarded to them by the Land Acquisition Collector a reference under Section 18 was got made which came to be disposed of by the Reference Court vide impugned judgment dated 7th December, 1995 and the land owners were awarded compensation @ Rs.20,000/- per bigha in respect of the leveled land and Rs. 17,000/- per bigha for the land having pits. The compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector for the superstructures was left untouched. Since the land owners were still not satisfied they filed the present appeal.
2. During the course of the hearing of the appeal it was submitted by learned counsel for the appellants as well as Union of India that the market value of the land in village Tigri, which had prior to the acquisition of the land involved in the present appeal had been acquired RFA No. 429/1994 Page 2 of 4 vide notification dated 21-11-66 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, has been fixed by a Division Bench of this Court in RFA No. 270/1982 titled "M/s. R.C. Sood & Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India"
on 22nd February, 2002 @ Rs. 20,000/- per bigha and that was now the best piece of evidence which could be relied upon by this Court while determining the market value of the appellants' land in the same village Tigri after giving increase of 10% per annum for the period between 1966 to 1972 as per the judgment of this Court in "Bedi Ram vs. Union of India & Anr.", 93 (2001) DLT 150 without going into the evidence relied upon by the Reference Court in the present case which were, in fact, the decisions of this Court in respect of villages Tuglakabad and Kasumpur. It was submitted that based upon the market value of land @ Rs. 20,000/- per bigha fixed in R.C. Sood's (supra) case in respect of the notification of 1966 and after giving 10% yearly increase on that market value in view of Bedi Ram's judgment (supra) the market value of the land involved in the present appeal would work out to Rs. 33,613/- per bigha.
3. In view of the afore-said submissions having been made from both the sides with which I am also in full agreement, this appeal is disposed of by fixing the market value of the appellants' land @ Rs. 33,613/- per RFA No. 429/1994 Page 3 of 4 bigha and to that extent only appellants' claim would stand allowed. In addition to this relief, the appellants shall also be entitled to other statutory benefits but excluding the one under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act. The appellants shall also not be entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation for the period from 20-09-77 till 01-06-79 during which period the reference proceedings had been kept in abeyance on the prayer of the appellants before the Reference Court and statement had been made at that time on behalf of the claimants that they would not be claiming interest for the afore-said period and this position has been accepted by the learned counsel for the appellants also.
4. Parties are, however, left to bear their respective costs.
P.K. BHASIN,J FEBRUARY 04, 2011 sh RFA No. 429/1994 Page 4 of 4