Hukum Singh And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) Etc.
2004 Latest Caselaw 339 Del

JUDGMENT

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

1. This appeal has been filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (in short `the Act') against the judgment of the reference court with regard to the land acquired under award No.1/95-96 vide notification under Section 4 dated 19.3.1993 and notification under Section 6 dated 29.4.1993.

2. The appellants land located in village Singhola was acquired vide award No.1/95-96 on 19.3.1993. The Land Acquisition Collector (in short 'LAC') fixed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.96,875/- per bigha. The appellants aggrieved by the judgment of the learned LAC filed a reference petition under Section 18 of the Act on the ground that the lands inferior in situation and around the village was sold in open market at much higher rate as compared to the rates awarded by the learned LAC. They also stated that the learned LAC ignored the fact that all amenities and facilities of life like water, electricity, metaled roads, market, posts office, bank, hospital, schools, etc. were quite near to the Narela Township Project of the DDA. It is also stated that the land of the appellants was also levelled and without incurring much development charges, can easily be converted into residential as well as commercial colonies. The land of the appellants is located on G.T.Karnal Road and is quite adjacent to Narela Township Project. They also claimed compensation to the extent of Rs.18,000/- per bigha for his standing crops and Rs.5 lacs for tube-well, structure, trees, etc. For the market value of the land, he claimed that it should not be less than Rs.10,000/- per sq. yard.

3. The learned Additional District Judge framed the following issues:-

1."What is the market value of the acquired land of the petitioner(s) on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, i.e. 19.3.1993?

2.Relief."

4. The appellants themselves before the learned Additional District Judge (in short `ADJ') tendered in evidence, a copy of the judgment dated 29.8.2001, Ex.P-1, whereas learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the award Ex.R-1 in evidence. The appellants while referring to the judgment Ex.P-1 submitted that the market value of the acquired land should be fixed at Rs.1,30,523/- per bigha as on the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 19.3.1993. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, referred to the award wherein the market value of the land was fixed at Rs.96,875/- per bigha as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The learned ADJ after evaluating the evidence accepted the evidence Ex.P-1 and awarded compensation on the basis of judgment Ex.P-1 at Rs.1,30,523/- per bigha. The land of the same village Singhola, acquired under same notification and award in Ex.P-1 received compensation at the rate of Rs.1,30,523/- per bigha. The court observed that since there is no difference between the quality and potentiality of the land he fixed the market value of the acquired land as desired by the appellants at Rs.1,30,523/- per bigha as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 19.3.1993. The court also observed:

" In addition to the enhancement in compensation at the rate of Rs.33,648/- per bigha, the petitioners are also entitlted to get additional amount u/s 23(1-A) of the Act at the rate of 12% per annum on the market value from the date of notification u/s 4 of the Act till the date of award or dispossession, whichever is earlier and also to get solarium at the rate of 30% per annum on such market value in view of the compulsory nature of acquisition, and interest u/s 28 of the Act at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year from the date of disposal and at the rate of 15% per annum for the subsequent period till the payment on the difference between the enhanced compensation awarded by this court and the compensation awarded by the Ld. Land Acquisition Collector."

5. It is surprising that despite the fact that the learned ADJ has enhanced the compensation as demanded by the appellants on the basis of Ex.P-1, still the appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation. In the appeal it is mentioned that the learned ADJ has erred in not granting compensation of at least Rs.2 lakhs per bigha.

6. The learned ADJ rightly did not consider the other sale deeds filed by the appellants and relied on Ex.P-1 judgment while awarding the compensation to the appellants. The learned ADJ has also granted statutory benefits.

7. The lands involved in other sale deeds filed by the appellants are also from different villages which cannot be compared with the land of the appellants. We have carefully examined these sale deeds. The land involved in one of these sale deeds is of village Satbari which is almost about 20 kms. away from the acquired land of the appellants. The other sale deeds also do not advance the case of the appellants any further. Therefore, learned ADJ correctly did not place any reliance on these sale deeds. The land involved in Ex.P-1 is similar to the land of the appellants. It may be pertinent to mention that the appellants themselves wanted enhancement of compensation on the basis of Ex.P-1 before the reference court.

8. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the learned ADJ was justified in granting compensation on the basis of Ex.P-1 tendered in evidence by the appellants.

9. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. No interference is called for. The appeal being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

R. C. Jain, J.