Sant Gurbux Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr.
2005 Latest Caselaw 277 Del

JUDGMENT

B.C. Patel, C.J.

1. This appeal is preferred against the order made by the Reference Court on 23.05.2000 in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the said Act').

2. The land situated at Village Siraspur, Delhi was sought to be acquired vide notifications under Section 4 and 6 dated 13.02.1981 after following the procedure laid down in the said Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) made the award being Award N. 27/84-85 fixing the market price @ Rs.6,000/- per bigha. Since the said amount was inadequate, a reference was made to the Reference Court and considering the material placed on record, the Reference Court held that the claimants are entitled to get Rs. 15,500/- per bigha as the fair market value and all other consequential benefits as indicated in para 10 of the judgment. It is against the fair market value determined by the Reference Court, the present appeal has been preferred.

3. Our attention is drawn to decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Om Parkash and Ors. v. Union of India, (DB) wherein the land situated at Village Siraspur was sought to be acquired vide notification dated 26.03.1983 and the Court considering various aspects in para 14 of the judgment held that the land situated at Village Siraspur should be valued at Rs.42,000/- per bigha as a fair market value.

4. On behalf of the appellant, it is contended that in terms of the Apex Court decision in Civil Appeal No. 2170/2002 titled 'Krishna Rani Kapoor and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.' decided on 12.02.2004, the amount of compensation was determined at a higher rate, namely, Rs.60/- per sq.yd., therefore, the same amount of compensation should be awarded.

5. It is required to be noted that the judgment on which reliance is placed by learned counsel for the appellant in Krishna Rani Kapoor's case (supra), the land was situated at a different place known as Village Libaspur, Delhi. The Apex Court has pointed out that potentiality of the land for being utilised for commercial purpose was admitted and it was also established that the acquired land abuts on the one side to main Grand Trunk Road and on the other side of the land in question, commercial activities were already going on. It is in view of the special location, the Court has considered Rs.60/- per sq.yd., while in the instant case, the lands are situated in the Village itself, the lands were used for agricultural operation and no benefit could have been made available as in the case of Krishna Rani Kapoor's case (supra). No material has been placed on record to point out that the case is exactly or more or less same to that of Krishna Rani Kapoor's case (supra) or some special or peculiar facts in order to get higher market value.

6. The said Act indicates as to how the market value is to be determined. In the instant case, in the absence of any evidence, it would be most appropriate for the Court to rely on the determination of the market value of a land situated in the same Village in respect of the notification issued in 1983 considering two years difference in the present case and in the case of Om Parkash's case (supra). We are of the opinion that by reducing 10% value for each year, fair market value would be determined. Thus, in the present case, Rs.34,000/- would be the fair market value.

7. No doubt, on behalf of the respondent, it was contended that the claim was initially made for Rs.29,890/- only and, therefore, the appellant is not entitled to get any higher amount of compensation. In view of the decision in Om Parkash's case (supra) and the principle of valuation as noticed here-in-above as also by reason of enhancement of claim in appeal for which court fee has been paid, we are of the opinion that Rs.34,000/- would be the fair market value of the land in question.

8. Needless to say, all other benefits which are available under the said Act including the benefit accrued in view of judgment of the Apex Court in Sunder v. Union of India, 93 (2001) DLT 569 shall be made available to the appellant.

9. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent leaving the parties to bear their own costs.