Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 146 (DEL)

MIR SINGH v. U. O. I.

2009-02-04

MANMOHAN

body2009
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) 1. Admit. 2. With the consent of parties, matter is taken up for final disposal. 3. The petitioner had 1/5th share in land comprised of Khasra No.6216(4- a), 7(4-16), 15(4-9) referred to first parcel of land admeasuring 13-14 and 1/4th share in the land comprised in Khasra No.6 1/1 (4-8), 2 min(1-8), 9 min(4- 15) 10(4-16), 11(4-16), 12(4-16), 18/2 (1-12), 66/19(4-16), 20(4-16), 21(3-19), 22(2-16), 23(1-14), 24/1 (0-b), 28 (05), 29(0-4), 62/16(4-9), 24/2 (1-3), 25(4-9), 64/5 (0-10), 65/1 (0-3) total 56 1 bigha and referred to as second parcel of land in village Dhool Siras. This land was acquired vide notification under Sections 4 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as L.A. Act) issued on 9th January, 1987 and followed by declaration U/s 6 of L.A. Act on 18th September, 1987. The Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as LAC) assessed the compensation by award No.17/1989-90. .4. Dissatisfied by the award of the LAC, the petitioner sought reference under Section 18 of L.A. Act. The LAC referred the matter to the civil court and a statement under Section 19 of L.A. Act was also filed by the LAC. The reference so made by the LAC was registered as LAC No.242/1993 while sending the reference and statement under Section 19 of L.A. Act, the LAC only mentioned the first parcel of the land owned by the petitioner and omitted to mention the second parcel of the land. On 21st January, 1994 the counsel for the petitioner admitted the correctness of the statement under Section 19 including the description of the land mentioned therein. No objection about the omission of the second parcel of the land was raised by the petitioner at that point of .time. On the pleadings of the parties, the reference court framed the following issues: a. What was the fair market value of the land in dispute at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act and what enhanced compensation, if any the petitioner is entitled b. Relief. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the reference court framed the following issues: a. What was the fair market value of the land in dispute at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act and what enhanced compensation, if any the petitioner is entitled b. Relief. 5. Thus no issue regarding the omission of the second parcel of the land was raised and framed by the learned civil court, which eventually after considering the oral documentary evidence lead by the parties, vide judgment and decree dated 19th January, 2003 enhanced the compensation only in respect of the land mentioned in the statement under Section 19 and no enhancement was granted in respect of the second parcel of the land of the petitioner. 6. After the disposal of the petition under Section 18, the petitioner filed an application under Section 151 and 153 of CPC on 4th February, 2003 seeking correction of the error in the judgment and statement under Section 19 of L.A. Act. Upon the application of the petitioner the learned civil court sought a revised statement under Section 19 of L.A. Act from the LAC, which was filed by him on 13th September, 2004, containing the entire share of the petitioner as referred above. However, the learned civil court vide the impugned order dated 19th July, 2007 declined to carry out the correction and thus the same has been challenged in the present petition. 7. The counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned civil court failed to apply the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kumar v. UOI reported in 1991 (1) Current Civil Cases 714, wherein in similar situation, correction was allowed. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent contended that once the case is disposed of, the civil court becomes functus officio and such an application seeking substantive right is not maintainable particularly in view of the statement made by the petitioner on 21st January, 1994. According to Mr. Poddar, the petitioner is bound by such statement and cannot be permitted to claim compensation in respect of second parcel of land at this belated stage. The counsel for the petitioner also contended that admittedly the entire land of the petitioner as mentioned in the revised statement has been acquired and that the petitioner sought reference in respect of his entire holding. The counsel for the petitioner also contended that admittedly the entire land of the petitioner as mentioned in the revised statement has been acquired and that the petitioner sought reference in respect of his entire holding. However, due to the contributory negligence from both the sides, the second parcel of the land was omitted and in such situation, the petitioner is willing to give up his claim for interest under Section 28 of L.A. Act for period w.e.f. 21st January, 1994 till the date of filing of the application i.e. till 4th February, 2003 on the enhanced amount. .8. Since the admitted position is that the petitioner is the owner of the second parcel of the land and the same has been acquired by the respondents, I am of the view that the petitioner would be entitled to receive enhanced compensation for the same. Moreover, the learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly stated that he would not be claiming interest for the period 21st January, 1994 to 4th February, 2003. Consequently, the decree passed by the Additional District Judge needs to be modified to include the second parcel of land in terms of the revised statement filed by the LAC under Section 19 of L.A. Act. Needless to say, the petitioner would be entitled to enhanced compensation along with all .the benefits mentioned in para 8 of the original decree dated 15th January, 2003 excluding the interest for the period 21st January, 1994 to 4th January, 2003. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition stands disposed of. 10. Order dasti.