Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 93 (DEL)

MOHAR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA

2001-01-25

DEVENDER GUPTA, MUKUL MUDGAL

body2001
Devinder Gupta ( 1 ) THE question arising for determination in these appeals is about the compensation payable to the claimants for acquisition of their properties situated at village Kondli, which was acquired through notification issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on 13. 11. 1959. ( 2 ) UNDER general notification issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the act on 13. 11. 1959 vast land in numerous villages in Delhi was notified for being acquired for public purpose, namely, Planned Development of Delhi. This notification also included therein considerable land situated in villages Chilla Sarodha bangar, Chilla Sarodha Khadar, Dallupura, Gharauli, Mandaoli Fazalpur and gazipur. ( 3 ) VILLAGE Kondli was also one of the villages wherein land was notified for being acquired for the same public purpose under the same notification. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act followed on 17. 5. 1966. For Kondli, the Collector, Land acquisition made the first Award No. 84/72-73 on 30. 11. 1973. Supplementary award No. 84-A/72-73 was made by him on 18. 9. 1976. Under both the awards collector, Land Acquisition offered compensation at the rate of Rs. 550. 00 per bigha. Claimants sought reference. The Reference Court in three cases enhanced the amount of compensation holding the fair market value of the land as on the date of notification at Rs. 6,000. 00 per bigha. Feeling dissatisfied the claimants preferred appeals. ( 4 ) DURING pendency of appeals for the adjoining villages by various judgments of this Court and of Supreme Court of India fair market value as on 13. 11. 1959 was held to be in the range of Rs. 8,000. 00 per bigha to Rs. 9,000. 00 per bigha. For Chilla saroda-Bangar, this Court in RFA No. 250/94, Babu Ram Sharma and Others v. Union of India, decided on 12. 9. 1996 assessed the market value at Rs. 8,064. 00 per bigha, acquired through the same notification for the same public purpose. For dallupura in RFA No. 128/82, Om Prakash v. Union of India, decided on 11. 4. 1991 market rate was assessed at Rs. 8,064. 00 per bigha for the lands acquired through the same notification. For Gharauli and Khichripur the market value was assessed at Rs. 8,000. 00 per bigha, acquired through the same notification for the same public purpose. For dallupura in RFA No. 128/82, Om Prakash v. Union of India, decided on 11. 4. 1991 market rate was assessed at Rs. 8,064. 00 per bigha for the lands acquired through the same notification. For Gharauli and Khichripur the market value was assessed at Rs. 8,000. 00 per bigha by this Court in RFA No. 690/88, Sant Singh and Others v. Union of India, decided on 23. 9. 1996 and in RFA No. 68/83, Mangtoo @ Mangoo v. Union of India and Others, reported as 78 (1999) D. L. T. 723 (D. B.) respectively. Villages, namely, Chilla Sarodha Bangar, Chilla Sarodha Khadar, Dallupura, Kondli, Gharauli, khichripur and Mandaoli Fazalpur are located side by side. As on the date of notification dated 13. 11. 1959 the acquired land of these villages had more or less the same and similar advantages and potentiality with no difference at all. The collector had also in his award, while offering amount of compensation for village kondli relied upon his award of village Dallupura. Accordingly, the Reference court in the 4th case giving rise RFA No. 66/2000 assessed the amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 8064. 00 per bigha. In RFA No. 739/94 and RFA No. 247/94 the claimants have sought further enhancement in the amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 9,000. 00 per bigha. RFA No. 560/93 was preferred by the union of India claiming reduction in the amount of compensation, which was admitted for hearing. Claimants filed cross objections (CM. No. 754/94) therein claiming ompensation at the rate of Rs. 10,000. 00 per bigha. In RFA No. 66/2000, the claimants have also sought further enhancement at the rate of Rs. 10,000. 00 per bigha. In addition, claim has been made for interest on solatium, which has been denied by the Reference Court. ( 5 ) RFA No. 560/93 was dismissed on 13. 10. 1998. Accordingly, only cross- objections filed therein remain for consideration. ( 6 ) WE have heard learned Counsel for the parties and been taken through the record. ( 7 ) THE Collector, Land Acquisition while offering amount of compensation to the claimants of village Kondli equated the acquired land of village Kondli with that of village Dallupura, as on 13. 11. Accordingly, only cross- objections filed therein remain for consideration. ( 6 ) WE have heard learned Counsel for the parties and been taken through the record. ( 7 ) THE Collector, Land Acquisition while offering amount of compensation to the claimants of village Kondli equated the acquired land of village Kondli with that of village Dallupura, as on 13. 11. 1959, which was also acquired under the same notification and for which he had made the award No. 2052. He was of the view that the same rate would be payable to the claimants whose lands have been acquired in village Kondli, which was assessed for the lands situated at village Dallupura. On this basis, the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No. 2/99, Delhi Housing and Land Development Corporation v. Union of India, held that there would be no justification to take a different criteria in the matter of assessment of compensation since in case of acquired lands of village Dallupura this Court had in RFA No. 128 / 82, Om Prakash v. Union of India, already determined the amount of compensation at Rs. 8,064. 00 per bigha and accordingly the Reference Courtvide award dated 7. 7. 1999 also allowed compensation to the claimants in L. A. C. No. 2/99 at the rate ofrs. 8,064. 00 per bigha. For this reason, learned Counsel appearing in RFA No. 66/ 2000 stated that he had instructions not to press the appellant s claim for higher amount of compensation than what had been allowed by the Reference Court. For the same reason, we are of the view that the claimants in RFA Nos. 739/94, 247/94 and in Cross-Objections (CM 754/94) would be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 8,064. 00 per bigha. Nothing has been brought to our notice, which would justify increase in the amount of compensation beyond that limit. ( 8 ) IN so far as the interest on solatium is concerned, we are informed that after the decision in Union of India and Others v. Ajaib Singh and Others, 1995 (6) S. C. C. 323, reference has already been made to a larger Bench on the question of entitlement for interest on solatium. ( 8 ) IN so far as the interest on solatium is concerned, we are informed that after the decision in Union of India and Others v. Ajaib Singh and Others, 1995 (6) S. C. C. 323, reference has already been made to a larger Bench on the question of entitlement for interest on solatium. Our attention has been drawn to an order passed in Kapur Chand Jain (dead) and Others v. State Government of H. P. and others, AIR 1999 S. C. 3470, wherein also such a reference has been made. Till a contrary view is taken, we cannot accept the plea on behalf of the claimants/ appellants for payment of interest on solatium. In one case additional benefit under section 23 (1a) of the Act has been allowed, which in terms of decision in K. S. Paripoornam v. State of erala and Others, (1994) 5 S. C. C 593, will not be available in these cases. We order accordingly. ( 9 ) CONSEQUENTLY, RFA No. 739/94; Cross-Objections (CM 754/94) and RFA no. 247/94 are allowed with proportionate costs holding the claimants to be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 8,064. 00 per bigha. In addition, the claimants will be entitled to solatium and interest as per the award of the Reference court including interest at the rate of 6% p. a. on the market value of the land under section 4 (3) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1967 for the period from the date of expiry of three years of the date of notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act to the date of tender or payment of compensation awarded by the Collector and to that extent the awards of the Reference shall stand modified. It is also directed that in case interest is ultimately held payable on solatium by the Supreme Court, the claimants will also be paid interest accordingly. Cross-Objections (CM 754/94 in RFA 560/93) union of India through Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate versus chander Prakash and Others through Mr. R. C. Gupta, Advocate by a common judgment passed today in RFA 739/94, cross-objections have been allowed. A copy of the judgment delivered in RFA No. 739/94 be placed on the file of rfa 560/93 by the Registry. RFA 247/94 chander Prakash and Others through Mr. R. C. Gupta, Advocate versus union of India through Mr. R. C. Gupta, Advocate by a common judgment passed today in RFA 739/94, cross-objections have been allowed. A copy of the judgment delivered in RFA No. 739/94 be placed on the file of rfa 560/93 by the Registry. RFA 247/94 chander Prakash and Others through Mr. R. C. Gupta, Advocate versus union of India through Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate by a common judgment passed today in RFA 739/94, this appeal has been allowed. A copy of the judgment delivered in RFA No. 739/94 be placed on the file of rfa 247/94 by the Registry. RFA 66/2000 m/s. Delhi Housing and Land Development Corporation through Mr. R. C. Gupta, advocate. versus union of India through Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate by a common judgment passed today in RFA 739/94, this stands dismissed as not pressed. A copy of the judgment delivered in RFA No. 739/94 be placed on the file of RFA 247/94 by the Registry. Ordered accordingly.