Shri Hira Singh And Anr. (Deceased ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2005 Latest Caselaw 1009 Del

JUDGMENT

B.C. Patel, C.J.

1. The present appeal is preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order made by the reference Court in LAC 261/2004 on 27th November, 2004 LA APP. No. 68 of 2005 Page No. 1 of 3 Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 24th October, 1961; declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 7th December, 1966 after following the procedure. The Land Acquisition Collector made an award bearing No. 19/1983-84 for the land situated in the revenue estate of Samaipur, Delhi, which was announced on 4th July, 1983 wherein the Land Acquisition Collector fixed the market value of the land at Rs. 2500/-.

2. Being aggrieved by the said award, the claimant under Section 18 of the Act sought reference and the reference Court determined the amount of compensation at Rs. 7000/- per bigha. It is against that award made by the reference Court, this appeal is filed.

3. It is required to be noted that no evidence was led whatsoever by the claimants in this case except the judgment P-1 wherein the market value was determined by the reference Court in LAC 116/2004 titled Shri Chander Singh and Others Vs. Union of India and Others decided on 19th August, 2004 at Rs. 7000/- per bigha.

4. The only contention urged before the reference Court was that valuation of land should be determined relying on the judgment exhibit P-1 as the situation, quality, potentiality and advantages of the land in question and the land involved in exhibit P-1 were also same. The reference court has noted that the claimants LA APP. No. 68 of 2005 Page No. 2 of 3 rightly pointed out that the market value was fixed relying on the judgment of this Court in RFA No. 222/77 dated 23rd August, 1993. In view of this, they were also entitled to get higher value of the land at Rs. 7000/- per bigha.

5. In our opinion if a reference court awarded the compensation whatsoever prayed before it, no appeal would be maintainable against that order. Further in RFA No. 247/2000 with other references decided on 9th December, 2004 in the case of Smt. Asrafi Devi v. Union of India and Anr. and in Hukum Singh and Ors. v. Union of India etc. 111 (2004) DLT 95 (DB) this Court has taken a view that the claimant cannot claim more than what he has prayed for before the reference Court.

6. In view of the aforesaid, this appeal is not required to be entertained and hence dismissed.