* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA 200/2002
Date of decision : 15.02.2010
IN THE MATTER OF :
DAYA NAND ..... Appellant
Through : Mr. Kuldeep Sehrawat, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ramesh Ray, Advocate for R1/UOI.
CORAM
* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may No
be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be No
reported in the Digest?
HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL)
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10.10.2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge on a reference petition filed by the petitioner in respect of the land situated in village Singhola, covered under Award No.1/95-96 announced on 26.4.1995, pursuant to the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (in short 'the Act'), and followed by the notification issued under Section 6 of the Act dated 29.9.1993.
2. The petitioner was aggrieved by the market value of the acquired land fixed by the learned LAC at Rs.96,875/- per bigha. By the impugned judgment, the Reference Court enhanced the market value of the RFA 200/2002 Page 1 of 3 entire land to Rs.1,30,523/- per bigha and thus held that the petitioner was entitled to get enhancement in compensation @ Rs.33,648/- per bigha. In addition thereto, the petitioner was also held entitled to other statutory benefits as specified in para 12 of the impugned judgment.
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner has filed the present petition, wherein the enhancement in compensation for the acquired land is sought @ Rs.3,00,000/- per bigha.
4. Counsel for the respondent draws the attention of this Court to para 8 of the impugned order to submit that the petitioner claimed fixation of the market value of the entire land @ Rs.1,30,523/- per bigha by relying upon the judgment passed in LAC No.90/2000 entitled Surinder Singh vs. UOI & Anr. decided on 29.8.2001. The Reference Court took into consideration the said judgment and drawing a parity therewith, fixed the market value of the entire land also at Rs.1,30,533/- as on 19.3.1993, i.e., the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. He submits that in these circumstances, no further enhancement can be claimed by the petitioner, beyond what was granted to the petitioner as that was the rate he had himself claimed.
5. Counsel for the appellant concedes the aforesaid position. Parties draw the attention of this Court to the judgment of the Division Bench dated 6.4.2004, passed in the case of Ram Chander & Ors. vs. UOI Etc., reported as 2004 (74) DRJ 182 (DB). The aforesaid judgment also pertains to the land situated in village Singola under the same award, wherein the Division Bench, after considering the judgment of the Reference Court impugned in the said appeal, did not find any infirmity therein and dismissed the appeal of the land owners.
RFA 200/2002 Page 2 of 3
6. As the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, impugned in the aforesaid appeal is identical to the one in the present case, and has been upheld by the Division Bench in the case of Ram Chander (supra), nothing further survives in the present appeal. Following the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench, the present appeal is dismissed, while affirming the impugned order.
7. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
(HIMA KOHLI) JUDGE FEBRUARY 15, 2010 sk/rkb RFA 200/2002 Page 3 of 3