Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Har Dayal
2005 Latest Caselaw 139 Del

JUDGMENT

B.C. Patel, C.J.

1. A displaced person has not been compensated despite the finding that he was entitled to get two standard acres and 8-11/12 units. The Court examined the matter in detail and found that the appellant was solely negligent in not discharging its duties and the respondent was required to move from one place to another for getting his rightful claim. It would be worth referring para 11 of the decision of the learnlprm ed single Judge:- ''11. As there is no reason to dispute the averments of the respondents in this behalf and as per these averments land is not available with the Government for allotment to the petitioner, direction to the respondents to allot the land cannot be given. however, at the same time, it is clear that the petitioner, at one stage was found entitled to get the land and actual allotment was not made only because the file was not traceable. For this the respondents are to be squarely blamed because of whose negligence or carelessness the petitioner was deprived of the allotment of land. Granting of cash compensation of few hundred rupees, in such circumstances, would be pittance and would result in adding insult to the injury caused to him. In such a case provisions of Rule 62 or 56 shall have not application. The petitioner, therefore, should at least be given the market value of the land as on the date of filing this petition. It should be worked out and paid to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.''

2. Before us the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Rule 66 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules,1955 was not taken into consideration. However, to a query from us the learned counsel for the appellant replied that he cannot say whether this submission was made or not because he was not the counsel, who appeared before the learned single Judge. It was submitted before the Court about fertility of land and the fact that the respondent was offered alternative land t other places. We find no reference in the impugned judgment. Obviously, matter must not have been argued on these issues, otherwise, there would have been reference in the judgment. If the said submissions were made and were not referred to in the impugned judgment, then it was the duty of the appellant to move the learned single Judge by filing a review petition. Any way, having not done that, it is not open to the appellant to raise these contentions before us. It is no use raising these contentions without any material on record that in the year 1952 he was offered land at other places or that he was offered land somewhere in 1965. Looking to the situation prevailing at the relevant time, if the land had been offered, the respondent might have accepted the same. But it is too late today to say that the land was offered at the relevant time in the absence of any material on record.

3. It is also required to be noted that while awarding the compensation in cash the learned single Judge has considered the hard realities. It appears that the learned single Judge also considered that if the compensation is paid on the date of the order that would also be against the interest of revenue. In order to balance the equities the learned single Judge directed that amount of compensation should be paid by reference to the date of filing of the petition.

4. We find no error in the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed. The amount as directed by the learned single Judge shall be paid by the appellant within one month from today.