Tej Ram And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr.
2004 Latest Caselaw 370 Del

JUDGMENT

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Addl. District Judge dated 5th March, 2003 delivered in LAC No.42/1999.

2. An area measuring 1374 bigha and 6 biswas was notified under Sections 4, 6 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the `Act') for the public purpose of the planned development of Delhi and Papankalan Project Dwarka Scheme. The Land Acquisition Collector vide Award No.13/1991-92, fixed the market value of the acquired land for Block A at Rs.4.65 lacs per acre i.e Rs.96,875/- per bigha and Rs.18,900/- per bigha for Block B land. The appellant dissatisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Officer preferred a petition under Section 18 of the Act to the Additional District Judge. It may be pertinent to mention that for acquisition of agricultural land in Delhi, the respondent vide notification dated 3rd May, 1990 fixed the rate as Rs.4.65 lacs per acre. In the instant case, the land of the appellant was acquired vide notification dated 10.7.1990 that is two months after the revised rates for acquisition were fixed by the respondent.

3. The learned Addl. District Judge in the impugned order observed that the Land Acquisition Collector had granted compensation on the basis of the revised rate for acquisition of land. In case the appellant wanted even higher compensation then it was for the claimant to have proved that his land deserved higher compensation. The claimant ought to have led evidence in that regard. No such evidence was produced. In absence of any evidence, the Land Acquisition Collector was justified in granting compensation @ Rs.4.65 lacs per acre i.e Rs.96,875/- per bigha for acquisition of agriculture land.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. Since the respondent has been granted compensation on the basis of the revised rates fixed by the Government on 3.5.1990 and the land in the instant case was acquired only two months thereafter, therefore, the learned Additional District Judge was justified in upholding of the order of the Land Acquisition Collector.

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