Sita Ram vs Union Of India
1999 Latest Caselaw 267 Del

JUDGMENT

Usha Mehra, J.

1. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the Act) was issued on 27th January, 1984 in order to acquire land situated in Villages Amberhai, Matiala, Palam, Togan Pur, Shahbad Mohd. Pur, Sahupur, Bharthal, Loharheri and Bagrola, for the planned development of Delhi known as Pappankala Residential Scheme.

2. In the present appeal we are concerned with the acquisition of land in Village Amberhai. The Land Acquisition Collector determined the market value of the land of A-Block land in Village Amberhai at Rs. 13,000/- per Bigha and at Rs. 11,000/- per Bigha for B-Block land, beside other statutory benefits. The appellant felt aggrieved and preferred reference under Section 18 of the Act.

3. Shri S.M. Aggarwal, learned Additional District Judge in LAC No. 812/88 decided on 2nd April, 1993, assessed market value of the land in Village Amberhai at Rs. 36,400/- per Bigha.

4. Appellants have felt aggrieved by the determination of the marketvalue of the land at Rs. 36,400/- and preferred this appeal primarily on the ground that for the land acquired by the same notification of Village Shahbad Mohd. Pur, Division Bench of this Court in RFA No. 724/95 in, Balak Ram & Ors. Vs. Union of India, decided on 2nd November, 1998 enhanced the compensation and determined the market value at Rs. 47,224/- irrespective of the category of land.

5. Mr. S.S. Dalal appearing for Union of India admits that vide same notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 27th January, 1984, land of all the nine villages were acquired. He however contends that the land in Amberhai is not comparable with the land in Shahbad Mohd. Pur with which the Division Bench in RFA No. 724/95 was concerned. We find no merit in this submission of Mr. Dalal because the land in question is situated adjacent to the land of Village Shahbad Mohd. Pur. A perusal of the impugned judgment of the learned Additional District Judge shows that it was the stand of Union of India that determination of price of the Village Amberhai should be the same as Village Shahbad Mohd. Pur. Learned Additional District Judge also observed that the land price of Village Shahbad Mohd. Pur. is relevant for determining the price of land of Village Amberhai as these villages are adjacent to each other. These were acquired vide same notification and for the same purpose. Moreover, the Land Acquisition Collector himself on pages 25-26 of the impugned award stated that the land of Village Amberhai is superior to the land of Village Shahbad Mohd. Pur.

6. There being no basic difference in the matter of potentiality of land and situation of Village Amberhai and Shahbad Mohd. Pur, we see no reason why the same rate as determined by this Court in the case of Balak Ram & Ors. Vs. Union of India (supra) be not made application to the facts of this case. Even otherwise the Supreme Court as well as this Court have repeatedly held the view that when there is a large scale acquisition of land in various villages which are adjacent to each other and having same potentiality then the pattern of evaluating the compensation should be consistently followed by the Court. The State cannot categories land for fixing different rates of land when its land has been acquired for the same purpose. (see , Brig. Sahib Singh Kalha Vs. Amritsar Improvement Trust Ors. & , Inderjit Kaur Vs. Rajinder Singh). The State cannot refuse to pay in respect of lands acquired under the same notification, compensation awarded to the land owners whose similarly situated lands had been acquired under the same notification for the same purpose. This is so held by the Apex Court in the case of Nand Ram & Ors. Vs. The State of Haryana, reported in JT 1988 (4) S.C. 260. The determination of compensation for the entire village has to be considered keeping in view that for a land inferior to the land in question this Court in RFA No. 724/95 had already fixed the compensation of Rs. 47,224/-.

7. Therefore, on parity of reasoning as given in the case of Balak Ram (supra) we hold that above appellant of Village Amberhai would be entitled to the compensation of his land at the rate of Rs. 47,224/- per Bigha.

8. Besides compensation on the aforesaid basis, the appellant will also be entitled to 12% additional amount under Section 23(1A) of the Act. Appellants will also be entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% of the market value of land. The amount of compensation awarded by the Court in the present case is in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector. Therefore, the appellant will be entitled to interest on the excess amount at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of taking possession of the land by the Collector to the date of payment of such excess into Court. If the excess or any part thereof was paid into Court after the date of expiry of a period of one year from the date on which possession was taken, interest at the rate of 15% per annum shall also be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of such excess or part thereof which has not been paid into Court before the date of such expiry. The appellant will get proportionate costs of the appeal.

Appeal stands disposed.

Appeal disposed of.