Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 16, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Sh. Ishwar Chand ] Sons Of Sh. Ram Dutt vs Union Of India Through on 10 September, 2008

                                        1


             IN THE COURT OF SHRI YASHWANT KUMAR : 
             ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (LAC) : DELHI

LAC No. : 41/1/08                  AWARD No  : 02/LAC/N/2005­06
                                   VILLAGE      : Burari, Delhi

In the matter of :

1       Sh. Ishwar Chand                 ]         sons of Sh. Ram Dutt
2       Sh. Kishan Chand                 ]

3       Sh. Parveen Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Dutt 
        (deceased) through his legal heirs

        a       Sh. Ishwar Chand         ]
        b       Sh. Krishan Kumar        ]         brothers
        c       Sh. Parmod Kumar         ]
        d       Sh. Subodh Kumar         ]

4       Sh. Pramod Kumar                 ]         sons of Sh. Ram Dutt
5       Sh. Subodh Kumar                 ]

        All residents of village Burari, Delhi

        (Through Ld. Counsel Sh. Deepak Khosla )
                                                         ...Petitioners

                                     Versus

1       Union of India through 
        Land Acquisition Collector (North), 
        Office at 5, Shamnath Marg, Delhi

2       Delhi Development Authority
        through its Vice Chairman,
        Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi

        (Through Ld. Counsel Sh.Sachin Nawani & Ms. Renu Gupta )
                                                         ...Respondents

A W A R D REFERENCE U/S 18 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1 Vide notification No.F.11(30)/2003/L&B/LA/6600 dt. 18.07.2003 U/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the LA Act) and declaration was also made vide notification No.F.11(30)/ 03/L&B/LA/23254 dated 08.01.2004 U/sec. 6 of the LA Act, the land including the land of the petitioners situated in the revenue estate of 2 village Burari, Delhi as per statement U/sec. 19 of the LA Act was acquired by the Govt. for Development of Bio­Diversity Park Phase­II at Burari, Delhi. The Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as LAC) after completing all the requirements as provided under the Act, announced the award bearing No.02/LAC/N/2005­06 on 07.01.2006 and awarded the compensation @ Rs.15.70 lacs per acre (Category A) and Rs.5.05 lacs per acre (Category B). The LAC also awarded the compensation for tree, orchard, well/tube­well, etc. besides statutory benefits.

2 Feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the LAC, the petitioners herein filed petition U/s 18 of the LA Act for proper adjudication/market value of the acquired land which was sent to the reference court.

3 In this reference petition, the petitioners have sought the enhancement of compensation that the petitioners were the recorded bhumidar in possession of the land in question. The compensation assessed by the LAC is too low, unjust, arbitrary, without any reasonable basis and the same is not acceptable to the petitioners. The land of the petitioners at the time of issuance of notification u/sec. 4 of the LA Act was well connected with mettled roads from all sides and was having great potential value as residential & commercial site of the on the grounds among others that the petitioners land is levelled land because all sorts of civic amenities such as electricity, water, road, bus service, telephone, school, college, etc were easily available to the land of the petitioners, therefore, the land of the petitioners had great 3 potential being developed as a perfect residential and commercial site. The land of the petitioners is very close to number of developed residential colonies such as Dhirpur, Nirankari Colony, Sant Nagar, Mukherjee Nagar, Timarpur, Hardev Park, Milan Vihar, Jharoda Majra Burari, etc. The land of the petitioners is very fertile and gives three crops in a year i.e. two main crops of Rabi and Kharif & one crop of vegetables also which is sown during the intervening period of reaping Rabi crop and Kharif crop. The land of the petitioners was never under river bed. The land of the petitioners has never been in Yamuna belt which is clearly indicated from the revenue records. During the consolidation proceedings of this very village, the standard value of the land as per consolidation rules was placed at 12 annas for 1 bigha whereas the land which was in the river bed was assessed at 4 annas standard value. Therefore, it clearly indicates that the value of the land of the petitioners which was assessed at 12 annas was much better located than the lands which were in the river bed. The land of the petitioners was a perfect agricultural site and major portion of the land which is subject matter of acquisition was orchard and the lands were never subject to Aviliation ­ Deviolation and the same always remained levelled land and had been used for purposes of agriculture. The land of the petitioners was cultivable and was having proper source of irrigation and was being irrigated by boring pumps by installing diesel engines, wells and electric tube­wells. It is further stated that the land of the petitioners is very close and is at the intersection of village Jharoda Majra Burari and its boundaries are touching each other and it is just about one furlong away from village Dhirpur. Village Dhirpur is situated on the eastern/southern side of 4 the lands of village Burari. The land of the petitioners is very close to road No.50 which is a National Highway. The land of the petitioners is approachable by mettled road from main ring road and is also well connected to the adjoining area of the mettled road and as such the entire area which has complete electrification is a fully developed and is perfect site for agricultural as well as commercial/ building site. Therefore, at the relevant time, the value of the land of the petitioners was not less than Rs.10,000/­ per sq. yard and the petitioners claim the sum of Rs.10,000/­ per sq. yard amount as compensation for the acquired land in this reference petition. Besides the land, the petitioners was maintaining a full fledged orhard which was having the plants, trees, fruit bearing trees, trees of timber value, etc. 4 It is also stated that the LAC erred in placing the land acquired vide above award in two categories and erred in awarding Rs.15,70,000/­ per acre for block­A and Rs.5,05,000/­ for category­B. The categorisation of the land as done by the LAC is bad in law. However, all the lands which are subject matter of acquisition have a similar potential and consequently one market value ought to have been awarded for the entire land under acquisition. Moreover, the land of the petitioners was not subject to Aviliation - Deviolation and it was a levelled land which was being used for agricultural purposes. Further, the observation of the LAC as given in the award also indicates that the land of the petitioners was neither in the river bed nor was subject to Aviliation - Deviolation and the same was being used for agricultural purposes so the same ought to have been placed in A­ category and ought to have been paid compensation at least 5 Rs.15,70,000/­ per acre (though not conceding Rs.15,70,000/­ to be market value of the land at the time of initiation of notification u/sec. 4 of the LA Act). The another factor which goes to show that the categorisation as done by the LAC is bad in law is that during consolidation proceedings, the land of the petitioners was assessed at a standard value of 12 annas per bigha whereas, the lands which were in river bed or which were subject to Aviliation - Deviolation were put in the standard value of 4 annas per bigha. The difference which has been maintained by consolidation authorities was due to quality of the land and due to the apparent fact of situation of the land is in the category of 4 annas standard value, the land was in the river bed and in the other category of 12 annas was a perfect agricultural site not being in the river bed or not subject to Aviliation - Deviolation. This fact also finds support from the award itself where the LAC himself had visited the land under acquisition and has found that the land is not placed to Burdhi or Baramadi. Despite inspection, the LAC failed to place the land of the petitioners in A­category.

5 It is further stated that the LAC erred in fixing the market price of A­category and B­category lands on the basis of policy which was effective from 09.08.2001 meaning thereby that the Govt. was willing to pay as on 09.08.2001, the price of Rs.15,70,000/­ per acre. According to the petitioners, it is undisputed that in the instant case, the notification u/sec. 4 was issued on 18.07.2003 and the petitioners was entitled to the market value as on 18.07.2003. The LAC erred in not fixing the price which was determined by the Govt. as on 09.08.2001 without giving any escalation for the period from 09.08.2001 to 6 18.07.2003. The LAC ought to have awarded at least 12% p.a. on Rs.15,70,000/­ for arriving at the market value which was being offered by the Govt. On these grounds among others, the petitioners have filed this reference petition claiming Rs.10,000/­ per sq. yard for the land besides other statutory benefits & also the compensation for trees, super­structure, etc. 6 The UOI, in its written statement, has raised the main objections on the grounds among others that land has been acquired for the public porpose namely for Bio Diversity Park, Phase­II at Burari under the Planned Development of Delhi. Notices u/s 9 & 10 were issued to the land owners/ interested persons inviting claims of the land. Pursuant to the notices, claims were filed by the affected persons claiming different value of the land. After considering all the claims of the land owners/ interested parties, the LAC made and pronounced the award in question u/sec. 11 of the LA Act. The claim of the petitioner with respect to measurements, apportionment and compensation of the land or structure has been admitted by UOI to the extent of section 19 statement of the LA Act and the award no.02/LAC/N/2005­06. The compensation assessed by the LAC is sufficient and reasonable and it reflects the true market value prevailing at the time of the notification u/s 4 of the LA Act. Various factors were taken into account while assessing the market value. The petitioners are claiming excessive and exorbitant market value of the land. DLR Act is applicable to the land in dispute. The petitioner are not entitled for compensation in respect of any construction or structure which was raised without the sanction of law. However, it is 7 stated that at the time of issuance of notification u/sec. 4 of the Act, there were no structures, tree, well on the land in question except mentioned in the award and the statement u/sec. 19 of the LA Act in question. The land in question is not surrounded by any developed or un­developed colony and can be used for agricultural purposes only. The claim of the petitioner is time barred as the petitioner had the full knowledge of announcement of the award. The LAC has categorized the land into two categories on the basis of survey carried out as per fertility and user of the land. The ''Do Fasli'' land of standard quality was included in block­A and the land between the forward bandh and was included in block­B. 7 It is further stated that the LAC in order to assess the fair market value of the land adopted the indicative price fixed by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi for the agricultural land in Delhi as Rs.15,70,000/­ per acre for the year 2001­2002 conveyed by the order No.F9(20)/80/L&B/ LA/6704­12 dt. 09.08.2001 which are applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2001. The LAC adopted the indicative price fixed by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi as 15,70,000/­ per acre for the category of land falling in block­A. For block­B quality of land between the forward bandh was placed in the block­B and the market value as per the indicative price was fixed at Rs.5,05,000/­ per acre. The market value of the land was assessed as per the rate prevailing during the corresponding period even for land besides other statutory benefits. The LAC rightly assessed the market value of the land keeping in view all the aspects enumerated u/s 23 & 24 of the LA Act. Thus, the LAC assessed the fair market value of the land after considering the level of development, locality and situation 8 of the area of the land in question. All other averments except matter of record made in the reference petition have been denied. 8 DDA, in its written statement, has raised the objections on the ground that the Delhi Land Reform Act is applicable to the land in dispute which reduces its market value. The amount awarded by the LAC in this case is perfect, just and proper. It is based on cogent and reliable evidence and hence there is no scope for enhancement for compensation. The correctness of the khasra nos., their area and the extent of share of the petitioners therein has been admitted only to the extent as specified by the LAC in his statement furnished U/s 19 of the LA Act. The land in question is not surrounded by any developed or un­developed residential areas at the time of publication of the LA Act. There was no structure, tree, well, or tube well on the land in question at the time of publication of notification U/sec. 4 of the LA Act. The reference u/sec. 18 of the LA Act is time barred. However, DDA has admitted to the extent that the land bearing khasra nos.108/2 (4­16), 3 (4­16), 8 (4­16), 9 (4­16), 11/2 (2­17), 12/1 (1­04), 12/2 (3­12) situate in the revenue estate of village Burari, Delhi was acquired by the LAC vide the award no.02/2005­06 and the physical possession of the land has also been delivered by the LAC and Land & Building Department, DDA on 29.05.2006 and after taking the possession, the same has been further transferred to Sh.V.K.Bhatia, AE­Northern Division­V of DDA on the same day. All other averments except matter of record made in the reference petition have been denied by DDA.

9 9 On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by this Court on 26.05.2008 which are as under :

1 What was the market value of the land in question at the time of issuance of notification U/s 4 of the LA Act?

Onus on parties.

2 Whether the petitioners are entitled to enhancement in compensation, if so, to what amount? OPP 3 Relief 10 The counsel for the petitioners has tendered in evidence the certified copies of khasra Girdawaries for the year 2004 to 06 as Ex.P­1 & Ex.P­2, attested copies of khasra Girdawaries for the year 2000 to 2004 running into 11 pages collectively exhibited as Ex.P­3 and certified copies of relevant pages of the field book for the year 1980­81 running into 7 pages collectively as Ex.P­4. The counsel for the petitioners has further adopted the same evidence as led in similar reference i.e. LAC No.226/1/07 titled Raj Bal Vs UOI. Whereas, the counsel for the respondents have tendered in evidence the photocopy of certified copy of the sale deed for the land measuring 1 bigha in village Burari, Delhi for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/­ executed by Smt.Bimla Devi in favour of Sh.Birender Yadav vide regd. no.345 in book no.1, volume no.683, pages 75 to 80 on 21.01.2003 as Ex.R/X­1, photocopy of certified true copy of sale deed measuring 5 bighas 19 biswas situate at village Burari for a sum of Rs.6,32,000/­ executed by Sh.Ram Phal & Ors in favour of Smt.Nisha Tyagi vide regd. no.5996 in book no.1, volume no.906, pages 188 to 197 on 22.11.2003 as Ex.R/X­2 and photocopy of certified true copy of sale deed for the land measuring 2 10 bighas 10 biswas 5 biswansi situate at village Burari, Delhi for a sum of Rs.2,65,651/­ executed by Sh.Daya Nand & Ors in favour of Smt.Shobha Tyagi W/o Sh.Tilak Ram Tyagi & Smt.Usha Tyagi W/o Sh.Raj Bal Tyagi vide regd. no.32, book no.1, volume no.937 at pages nos.120 to 127 on 02.01.2004 as Ex.R/X­3 and the copy of the sale deed dt. 22.05.2003 vide regd. no.2380, book no.1, volume no.765 at pages nos.162 to 171 as Mark­A (certified copies of the said sale deeds have already been placed on record in the case of Raj Bal Vs UOI in LAC No.226/1/07) and the copy of the award no.2/LAC/N/2005­06 pertaining to village Burari, Delhi as Ex.R­1.

11 I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire records. My issue­wise findings are as under : ISSUE NOS. 1 & 2 12 Before deciding these issues, let us examine whether the reference petition has been filed by the petitioners within the limitation period. The award in question was announced on 07.01.2006 and the reference petition has been filed by the petitioners before the LAC vide the diary No.374/ADM/N on 17.02.2006. In this context, a reliance can be placed upon the judgment reported as Bharat Chand Dilwali Vs UOI 1988, RLR 224 wherein it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that bare knowledge of the award is not enough. Parties must have knowledge of the contents of the award. Further in Rajjan Hirabhai Motibhai & Ors Vs Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation, Panam project, Godhra and Ors AIR 11 1995 Gujrat 170, it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat that Collector has not merely to intimate parties about passing of award but he has to communicate essential contents of award, if not copy of award. The counsel for the respondents have not led any evidence on record that the essential contents of the award were communicated and the petitioners had constructive or actual knowledge of the award at the time of announcement of the award by the LAC and the reference petition is barred by limitation. Therefore, I hold that the reference petition has been filed within the period of limitation. 13 Now, I shall decide the issue nos.1 & 2. Both the issues are inter­connected and I shall decide both the issues together. The onus to prove these issues is upon the petitioners and the respondents. The petitioners have claimed for enhancement in compensation of the land in question on the aforesaid grounds mentioned in the reference petition which are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity. It has been held in several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that while assessing the market value of the land which is sought to be acquired by the government, situation, nature, potential/ user and neighbouring land, etc, is to be considered. In this context, I would prefer to rely upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well as the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The basic test was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Dy. Collector & Anr. Vs Kurra Sambasiva Rao & Others, AIR 1997 SC 2625 and it was held that :

12

''The court is required to keep at the back of its mind that the object of assessment is to arrive at reasonable and adequate market value of the lands. In that process, though some guess work is involved. Feats of imagination should be eschewed and mechanical assessment of the evidence should be avoided. Even in the absence of oral evidence adduced by the Land Acquisition Officer or the beneficiaries, the judges are to draw from their experience the normal human conduct of the parties and bona fide and genuine sale transactions are guiding star in evaluating the evidence. Misplaced sympathies or undue emphasis solely on the claimants right to compensation would place very heavy burden on the public exchequer to which other everyone contributes by direct or indirect taxes'' In Spl. Tehsildar, Land Acqn. Vishakhapatnam Vs Smt. A. Mangala Gowri AIR 1992 Supreme Court 666, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that :
''In determining the market value of the land, the price paid in sale or purchase of the land acquired within a reasonable time from the date of the acquisition of the land in question would be the best piece of evidence. In its absence the price paid for a land possessing similar advantages to the land in the neighbourhood of the land acquired in or about the time of the notification would supply the date to assess the market value. Where there were bona fide and genuine sale transactions in respect of the same land under acquisition wherein the claimant who was vendee had sold at Rs.5 per sq. yard, the High Court would not be justified in excluding such transactions and placing reliance on award of some other land for awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.10 per sq. yard, within a time lag of nine months from the bona fide transaction by seller.'' In the case of Shakuntalabai (Smt) & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported as (1996) 2 SCC 152 wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that when on record there is evidence of the value of the acquired land itself, then it is unnecessary to travel 13 beyond that evidence and consider the market value prevailing in the adjacent land. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under :
''It is seen that if there is evidence or admission on behalf of the claimants as to the market value commanded by the acquired land itself, the need to travel beyond the boundary of the acquired land is obviated. The need to take into consideration the value of the lands adjacent to the acquired land or near about the area which possessed same potentiality to work out the prices fetched therein for determination of market value of the acquired land would arise only when there is no evidence of the value of the acquired land. In a case where evidence of the value of the acquired land itself is available on record, it is unnecessary to travel beyond that evidence and consider the market value prevailing in the adjacent lands.''

14 The counsel for the petitioners, in support of his case, has proved on record the certified copies of khasra Girdawaries for the year 2004 to 06 which are Ex.P­1 & Ex.P­2 respectively and also the attested copies of khasra Girdawaries for the year 2000 to 2004 running into 11 pages collectively which are Ex.P­3 which reveals that the land in question was under cultivation prior or even after the date of notification u/sec. 4 of the LA Act. The counsel for the petitioners has also proved the certified copies of relevant pages of the field book for the year 1980­81 running into 7 pages collectively which is Ex.P­4. However, the counsel for the petitioners has further adopted the same evidence as led in the similar reference i.e. in LAC No.226/1/07 titled Raj Bal Vs UOI and has also filed & relied upon the judgment dt. 14.07.2008 passed by this reference court in LAC No.226/1/07 titled Raj Bal & Ors. Vs UOI. The counsel for the respondents have proved in 14 evidence the award in question as Ex.R­1, copies of sale deeds Mark­A, Ex.R/X­1 to Ex.R/X­3. In Raj Bal case (supra), the land situate at village Burari, Delhi was acquired vide the same notification dt.18.07.2003 u/sec. 4 of the LA Act, whereby this court thoroughly considered the materials placed on record i.e. the sale deeds relied upon and the evidence led by the parties and held that the petitioners' land is the agricultural land and petitioners therein are entitled to uniform compensation for the land under acquisition at Rs.15.70 lacs per acre i.e. the rate assessed by the LAC for category­A land. It was further held by this reference court in Raj Bal case that the petitioners therein were also entitled to compounded increase @ 11.5% annually on the compensation amount of Rs.15.70 lacs per acre fixed by this reference court of the land therein as per their shares from 09.08.2001 till the date of acquisition of the land i.e. 18.07.2003 which roughly comes to the total enhanced compensation of Rs.19,20,568/­ per acre (total amount fixed at Rs.19,20,568/­ per acre ­ Rs.5,05,000/­ per acre assessed by the LAC = Rs.14,15,568/­ per acre enhanced) as on 18.07.2003.

15 It is pertinent to mention here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi have held in catena of judgments that same rate of compensation should be awarded to the claimants for similarly situated land, same date of notification and same purpose of acquisition of the land. In this context, I would rely upon some judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. In Nand Ram & Ors Vs State of Haryana JT 1988 (4) SC 260, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the state 15 cannot refuse to pay in respect of lands acquired under the same notification, compensation awarded to the land owners whose similarly situated lands had been acquired under the same notification for the same purpose by the notification of the same date. In Krapa Rangiah Vs Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (1982) 2 SCC 374, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the area being comparable, the situation also being the same and all the plots having been acquired under the selfsame notification for Housing Scheme it seems to us proper that the same rate of compensation should be awarded to the claimant herein as was awarded by the High Court in Appeal No.50 of 1970. The Hon'ble Supreme Court enhanced the compensation granted to the claimant by Rs. 2 per sq. yard. with consequential increase in solatium and interest. In view of the above judgments, the petitioners herein cannot be dis­entitled for enhancement in compensation of the land in question which is also situate in the same area, location and village i.e. Burari, Delhi. Therefore, my decision is also supported with the aforesaid judgments for enhancement in compensation of the acquired land in dispute in this reference. Thus, the uniform compensation for the land in question is fixed at Rs.15.70 lacs per acre i.e. the rate assessed by the LAC for category­A land and compounded increase @ 11.5% annually is also given on the compensation amount of Rs.15.70 lacs per acre fixed by this reference court of the land in question from the date i.e. 09.08.2001 till the date of acquisition of the land i.e. 18.07.2003 which roughly comes to the total enhanced compensation of Rs.19,20,568/­ per acre (total amount fixed at Rs.19,20,568/­ per acre ­ Rs.5,05,000/­ per acre assessed by the LAC = Rs.14,15,568/­ per acre enhanced) as on 16 18.07.2003. The petitioners have not led any evidence for other claims as averred in the reference petition, therefore, they are not entitled for the said claim. Sh. Praveen Kumar/ petitioner no.3 who was unmarried had expired on 27.05.2007. Vide order dt. 26.05.2008 of this reference court, Sh.Ishwar Chand, Sh.Krishan Kumar, Sh.Pramod Kumar and Sh.Subodh Kumar have been substituted as the legal heirs of Sh.Praveen Kumar, therefore, the said LRs are entitled to receive the enhanced compensation in equal shares on behalf of Sh.Praveen Kumar/ petitioner no.3. These issues are answered accordingly. RELIEF 16 In view of my findings on the above issues, the petitioners are entitled to compensation for category A land at Rs.15.70 lacs per acre and the petitioners are also entitled to compounded increase @ 11.5% annually from 09.08.2001 till the date of acquisition of the land i.e. 18.07.2003. Therefore, I fix the market value of the land bearing khasra nos.108/2 (4­16), 3 (4­16), 8 (4­16), 9 (4­16), 11/2 (2­17), 12/1 (1­04) & 12/2 (3­12) total measuring 26 bighas 17 biswas situate at village Burari, Delhi at Rs.19,20,568/­ per acre as on 18.07.2003 (i.e. total amount fixed at Rs.19,20,568/­ per acre ­ Rs.5,05,000/­ per acre assessed by the LAC = Rs.14,15,568/­ per acre enhanced) as per the statement u/sec. 19 of the LA Act acquired vide the award no.2/2005­

06. The petitioners are entitled for the aforesaid enhancement in compensation according to their 1/5th share each of the said land. Besides it, the petitioners shall also be entitled to get additional amount u/sec. 23 (1A) of LA Act @ 12% per annum on the said increase from the date of notification u/sec. 4 of the LA Act till the date of award 17 or dispossession, whichever is earlier. The petitioners shall also get solatium u/sec. 23 (2) of LA Act @ 30% on the said increase in compensation and interest u/sec. 28 of LA Act @ 9% per annum for the first year from the date of dispossession and @ 15% per annum on the difference between the enhanced compensation i.e. increase awarded by this court and the compensation awarded by the LAC for the subsequent period till the payment. The petitioners are further entitled to interest on solatium and additional amount in terms of judgment of Hon'ble Apex court titled Sunder Vs UOI reported in DLT 2001 (SC) 569. This reference is answered accordingly.

A copy of this award be sent to the concerned LAC to make the payment of the enhanced amount of compensation to the petitioners within three months from today. While making the calculations due regard shall be made to deduct the amount initially arrived at by the LAC to avoid any duplication. There shall be no order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. The file be consigned to Record Room. 

Announced in open court                                  (  YASHWANT KUMAR  )       
on 10.09.2008                                                    ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE (LAC)
                                                                                         DELHI
                                           18


                                                                  LAC No. 41/1/08

10.09.2008 

Present­         The counsel for the parties

The counsel for the petitioners, in support of his case, has filed the copy of the award dt. 14.07.2008 in LAC No.226/1/07 entitled Raj Bal & Ors. Vs UOI & Anr.

Vide separate award dictated and announced in the open court, this reference is answered accordingly.

A copy of this award be sent to the concerned LAC to make the payment of the enhanced amount of compensation to the petitioners within three months from today. While making the calculations due regard shall be made to deduct the amount initially arrived at by the LAC to avoid any duplication. There shall be no order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. The file be consigned to Record Room.

( YASHWANT KUMAR ) ADJ/LAC/DELHI/10.09.2008