Delhi High Court
Inderjeet Singh Hansrao And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 18 July, 2002
Equivalent citations: 100(2002)DLT256
Author: B.N. Chaturvedi
Bench: B.N. Chaturvedi
JUDGMENT Devinder Gupa, J.
1. Heard.
2. The appeal is against the award of learned Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 26.5.2001 answering a reference made by the Collector, Land Acquisition under Section 28A(3) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as the Act.
3. Facts in brief are that the appellants land situated in village Dhirpur, Delhi was acquired for public purpose by virtue of notification issued under Sections 4, 6 and 17 of the Act on 1.11.1978. The Collector made his Award No. 26/80-81 on 9.5.1980. The appellants did not seek any reference. Others had sought reference for determination of the amount, which were forwarded to the Court. The Reference Court on 15.12.1987 answered one of such reference holding the fair market value of all categories of land, situated within the revenue estate of Dhirpur at Rs. 26,000/- per bigha as against Rs. 7,000/- per bigha offered by the Collector. As the appellants had not sought reference earlier, therefore, in consonance with the provisions of Section 28A of the Act, an application was moved by them before the Collector along with a certified copy of the said award of the Reference Court dated 15.12.1987 seeking redetermination of the amount of compensation. This application was filed within the period of limitation on 26.2.1988. The application was still under consideration and in the meanwhile, against the award of the Reference Court dated 16.12.1987 further appeal was preferred by those who had sought reference seeking further enhancement in the amount of compensation. The Collector being aware of the pendency of the appeals in this Court, deferred the decision on the appellants application and kept the said application of the appellants pending.
4. One of the appeals arising out of the award of the Reference Court was decided by a Division Bench of this Court. (RFA No. 424/1986, Gajendra Singh v. Union of India) on 20.7.1992 holding the fair market value of all categories of land situate in village Dhirpur and acquired under the same notification at Rs. 50,000/- per bigha. The appellants on acquiring knowledge of the judgment of this Court obtained a certified copy thereof and filed the same before the Collector, Land Acquisition with a prayer to decide their pending application in consonance with the decision of this Court in Gajendra Singh's case (supra).
5. The Collector by his order dated 19.11.1999 allowed the appellants application and proceeded to redetermine the amount of compensation payable to them but not in consonance with the decision of this Court in Gajendra Singh's case (supra) but on the basis of the award of the Reference Court dated 15.12.1987 holding the appellants entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 26,000/- per bigha. Feeling dissatisfied with the redetermination of the amount of compensation, the appellants sought reference, as provided in Section 28A(3) of the Act. The reference was forwarded to the Court for determination of the amount of compensation. By the impugned award the Reference Court proceeded to hold that the reference under Section 28A(3) was not maintainable and, therefore, there was no question of the appellants being entitled to further enhancement of the amount of compensation. The reasons assigned in holding so, as stated by the Reference Court in the impugned award are that when the application for redetermination was filed before the Collector, the question of determination of the amount of compensation was already pending in the High Court in appeal, the Collector ought not to have redetermined the market value during pendency of the said appeal. Reference was made by him to the decision of the Supreme Court in U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation v. State of U.P., . The Reference Court after taking note of the decision of Supreme Court observed that as the Supreme Court had in the said case directed the matter of determination of the amount of compensation to be kept pending till decision of the appeal, which was pending in the High Court, therefore, in his view the Collector was not justified on 19.11.1999 to have redetermined the amount, though the appeal already stood decided on 29.7.1992. This view which the Reference Court took of the ratio laid down in U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation's case (supra) is erroneous. The Reference Court has failed to correctly apply the decision of the Supreme Court. In the matter which was before the Supreme Court, the Collector had proceeded to redetermine the compensation while the appeal against the award of the Court on the basis of which redetermination had been sought was pending, whereas in the instant case the Collector duly took note of the pendency of the appeal in the High Court and rightly kept the application for redetermination of the amount of compensation pending and did not decide it. Before the Collector could take decision on the application, the High Court proceeded to determine the market value by its decision rendered on 29.7.1992. Copy was produced before him. Therefore, the Collector while redetermining the amount ought to have taken note of the decision of this Court in appeal and redetermined the amount of compensation as per the decision of this Court and not as per the award of the Reference Court. Consequently, the Reference Court also to have taken note of the decision of this Court and ought not to have held the reference as not maintainable. The observations of the Reference Court in para 18 of its award are also erroneous wherein he said that the award of the Collector redetermining the market value is not under challenge. The very fact that the appellants had sought reference against the said award of the Collector was nothing but non-acceptance of the said award and seeking determination in accordance with the law. The Reference Court was supposed to answer the reference and should not have held the same as not maintainable.
6. The purpose of enacting Section 28A was to give benefit to those who could not seek reference earlier. Re-determination of the amount of compensation was admittedly sought by the appellants within the period of limitation. When application came up for decision before the Collector, he had also the benefit of the judgment of this Court by which the award of the Reference Court dated 15.12.1987 on which determination was sought stood modified. The amount of compensation thus ought to have been determined on the basis of decision of this Court, which was not done and the Reference Court also erroneously declined to do so. As such, the impugned order of the Reference Court is liable to be set aside.
7. The appellants had initially sought compensation at the rate of 57,000/- per bigha before the Collector. For all categories of land Rs. 26,000/- was held by the Reference Court to be the fair market value. This Court without any reservation assessed Rs. 50,000/- per bigha to be the fair market value of all categories of land. There being no difference or any other circumstance in coming up to a different conclusion, we are of the view that the appellants are also entitled to equal treatment.
8. Consequently, the appeal is allowed with proportionate costs. The impugned order of the Reference Court is set aside. The appellants are held entitled to compensation @ Rs. 50,000/- per bigha. In addition to the enhanced market value, claimants will also be paid solarium at 30% and interest at the rate of 9% p.a. for a period of one year from the date of Collector taking possession and thereafter at the rate of 15% p.a. till payment. Interest will also be paid on solarium.