Aziz-Ur-Rehman Etc. vs Union Of India
1995 Latest Caselaw 567 Del

JUDGMENT

M.K. Sharma, J.

(1) These are appeals filed by the claimants/appellants under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the determination of compensation payable to the claimants/appellants in the award No-69/82-83 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi for public purpose under notification dated 4.09.1967 issued under Section 4 of the Act.

(2) The Land Acquisition Collector under award No-69/82-83 dated 22.2.1983 determined the compensation for the acquired lands of the claimants/appellants in Village Dhirpur at the rate of Rs.1,400.00 per bigha.

(3) On reference being made on the basis of the applications filed by the respective claimants/appellants, the reference court by its judgment and order dated 5.10.1988 enhanced the market value of the acquired land and determined the same at Rs.12,000.00 per bigha.

(4) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid determination the claimant/appellants have preferred these appeals before this court claiming higher compensation in respect of their acquired lands.

(5) Our attention has been drawn to a decision of this court in Rfa No.425/1986, Gajender Singh Vs. Union of India, disposed of on 20.7.1992 wherein this court in respect of same notification under Section 4 issued on 4.9.1967 in respect of lands situated in Village Dhirpur awarded Rs.40,000.00 per bigha for the acquired land. On perusal of the contents of the aforesaid judgment and order we find that not only the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on the same date namely 4.9.1967 as that of the lands involved in the present appeals but the Land Acquisition Collector also by the same award bearing No.69/82- 83 dated 22.2.1983 determined the compensation of the land at Rs.l,400.00 per bigha which later on came to be enhanced to Rs.40,000.00 by this court in the case of Gajender Singh (supra). In State of Madras Vs. A.N.Nanjiah and another, the Supreme Court has held that if the land involved in the award is comparable land in reasonable proximity of the land, the rates found would be a reliable material.

(6) We have carefully perused the judgment and order of this court dated 20.7.1992 passed in Rfa No-425/1986 in the case of Gajender Singh Vs. Union of India (Supra). On analysing the evidence adduced in the present case, we find that the land involved in the present case is comparable land possessing similar advantages and potential value to the land involved in the case of Gajender Singh (supra). We are also of the firm opinion that when for similar lands covered by the same notification relating to the same village and being the subject matter of the same award having similar advantages and potential value the court has determined the market value at certain price, the same price should also be applicable and fixed for the other land for which the court is called upon to determine the market value.

(7) Accordingly, following the aforesaid principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court and also the ratio of the decision in the case of GajinderSingh (supra) we enhance the market value of the lands involved in the present appeals and determine the same at Rs.40,000.00 per bigha. Over and above, the appellants/claimants shall also be entitled to solarium and interest in accordance with the provisions of Section 23 and Section 28 of the Act respectively on the enhanced compensation as awarded by the Additional District Judge. In addition the appellants shall also be entitled to additional amount on the enhanced value of compensation calculated @ 12% per annum from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the date of award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land whichever is earlier.

(8) In the result, the appeals filed by the appellants/claimants are allowed to the extent indicated above and the appeals filed by the Union of India against the enhancement of compensation by the Additional District Judge are dismissed. The appellants/claimants shall also be entitled to costs limited to the court fee. The appellants are directed to pay requisite additional court fee, if any, within 3 weeks from today.