Delhi Development Authority vs Land Acquisition Collector And ...
2002 Latest Caselaw 1532 Del

JUDGMENT

S.K. Mahajan, J.

1. With the consent of the parties matter has been heard and disposed of finally.

Certain landing village Dhaka was acquired vide notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The award no.82/1982-83 and 82A/1983 was made for the said land, however, the same could not beannounced as certain persons had challenged the acquisition proceedings and stay was granted by the Court. The writ petitions challenging the acquisition proceedings were dismissed by this Court on 14.12.1996. The Land Acquisition Collector thereafter made a supplementary award No.82-B/1982-83 on 11.12.1997 fixing the market value of the land as Rs.40,000/- per bigha as on 4.9.1997.solarium and interest was also awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. When the award was sought to be executed, the petitioner filed this petition alleging, inter alia, that before making enquiries for fixing the market value of the land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, the Collector ought to have issued notice to the DDA as the land was acquired for its benefit. On merits it is alleged by the petitioner that the Land Acquisition Collector had failed to appreciate that while assessing the market value of the land, he ought to have considered either the sale deed of the same village or the cases decided in relation to the said village. For this the learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court reported as Agra Development Authority Vs Special Land Acquisition Collector JT (2001) 2 SCC 489 and U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs Gyan Devi .

2. In the aforesaid judgments it was held by the Supreme Court that opportunity of adducing evidence ought to have been given to the body for whose benefit acquisition was made by the appropriate Government. It was also held that in the event of denial of the right conferred by Section 50(2) on account of failure of the Collector to serve notice of the acquisition proceedings, the local authority could invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The submission, therefore, is that since no notice under Section 50 of the Land Acquisition was given to the petitioner for whom the land was acquired, the award made by the Land Acquisition Collector was liable to be set aside. In RFA 600/1998 Bhanwar Singh Vs UOI decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 16.3.2000, the Court while considering the matter of grant of compensation in respect of the land acquired in the same village, namely, Dhaka enhanced the compensation to Rs.40,000/- per bigha. While assessing compensation at Rs.40,000/- per bigha, the Division Bench placed reliance upon another case Gajinder Singh Vs. UOI RFA 425/1986, decided on 20.7.1992 in which the market value of the land in village Dhirpur was assessed at Rs.40,000/- per bigha, village Dhirpur is at a distance of about 1 km from village Dhaka, in view of the fact that the Division Bench of this Court has fixed the market value at Rs.40,000/- per bigha for the land in the same village, no useful purpose will be served by setting aside the award on the assumption that notice ought to have been given to the Delhi Development Authority before making the award. Even if notice had been given, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court fixing the market value of land in the same village at Rs.40,000/- per bigha in the aforesaid cases would have been binding on the Land Acquisition Collector. The Land Acquisition Collector has also assessed the market value of the land at Rs.40,000/- per bigha. There may be some force in the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that notice ought to have been given to the DDA under Section 50 of the Act before fixing the market value of the land and making an award under the provisions of the Act, however, since this Court in other cases has already fixed the marked value of the land at Rs.40,000/- i.e., the same rate at which the Land Acquisition Collector has fixed the market value, I do not see any reason to allow this petition or remand the case back to the Land Acquisition Collector. Accordingly the petitioner is entitled to any relief in this petition and the same is dismissed.