Delhi High Court
Lt.Col.Hari Chand vs Uoi on 4 September, 2008
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA 487/1971
LT. COL. HARI CHAND ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Manmohan Gupta, Adv.
versus
UOI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Adv.
DATE OF DECISION:
% 04.09.2008
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
: PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral)
CM No.548/1979, CM No.11720/2006, CM No.11719/2006
& CM No.11721/2006
1. Vide CM No.11720/006 condonation of delay in filing
CM No.11719/2006 has been prayed.
2. Vide CM No.11719/2006 restoration of the appeal
has been prayed for. Vide CM No.11721/2006 revival of CM
No.548/1979 has been prayed for.
3. Vide CM No.548/1979 substitution of the legal heirs
of the deceased appellant has been prayed for. We note that
RFA No.487/1971 Page No.1 of 7
the appellant Hari Chand died on 6.2.1979.
4. When appellant died CM No.548/1979 was filed.
Claim for substitution was predicated on a stated will dated
28.7.1974 purportedly executed by the appellant. The will
came under a cloud. Probate of the will was sought for. On
15.5.1981 hearing of CM No.548/1979 was deferred sine-die
for the reason the Probate Court was seized of the dispute.
5. The appeal came to be listed before Court on
24.9.1992. The appeal was dismissed noting that none
appeared and even paper book was not filed.
6. Everyone went into a slumber till September, 2006
when CM No.11719-20-21/2006 were filed.
7. Prayers made in the 3 applications have been noted
hereinabove.
8. It was pointed out to this Court that after fighting for
years together the parties settled the dispute relating to the
probate of the will and that the probate petition was disposed
of as per consent, vide order dated 1.3.2006. As per the
settlement, the amount of compensation, if any enhanced,
was to be shared amongst Shri Chander Bal Dhawan, Shri Ram
Prakash Mehra, Shri Chander Kumar Mehra and Shri Som Nath
Mehra in the ratio : " 50 : 16.6 : 16.6 : 16.6", meaning thereby
Chander Bal Dhawan would get 50% of the enhanced
RFA No.487/1971 Page No.2 of 7
compensation and the remaining 3 would get remaining 50%
to be equally divided inter se the 3.
9. Explaining delay in seeking revival of the appeal, it
is stated that the parties were under the impression that
pursuant to the order dated 15.5.1981 hearing of the appeal
was adjourned sine die till dispute before the Probate Court
was decided and that when dispute before the Probate Court
was decided the parties sought inspection of the appeal and
thereupon learnt that the same was dismissed in default on
24.9.1992.
10. We are satisfied that the applicants had a sufficient
cause in belatedly preferring the application seeking
restoration.
12. We thus dispose of the applications as follows:-
A.) CM No.548/1979, CM No.11721/2006 are disposed of by
impleading Shri Chander Bal Dhawan, Shri Ram Prakash
Mehra, Shri Chander Kumar Mehra and Shri Som Nath Mehra
as the legal heirs of the deceased appellant.
Amended memo of parties is directed to be filed within a
week.
B.) CM No.11720/2006 is allowed. Delay in filing CM
No.11719/2006 is condoned.
C) CM No.11719/2006 is allowed. Order dated 24.9.1992
RFA No.487/1971 Page No.3 of 7
dismissing the appeal in default is set aside. The appeal is
restored for hearing.
RFA No.487/1971
1. Learned counsel for the parties state that the
printing of the record for preparation of the appeal paper book
may be dispensed with.
2. Ordered accordingly.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. Late Lt. Col. Hari Chand owned 2 bigha and 1 biswa
of land comprised in Khasra No.132 in the revenue estate of
Village Kalu Sarai. He also owned 7 bigha and 19 biswa of land
comprised in Khasra No.285/133 in the revenue estate of the
same Village.
5. Pursuant to a notification issued under Section 4 of
the Land Acquisition Act 1894 on 25.8.1962, the said land
came to be acquired vide Award No.1462.
6. Dissatisfied with the award, Lt. Col. Hari Chand
sought a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act, 1894.
Vide impugned judgment and decree dated 7.5.1971 the
Reference Court enhanced the compensation for the land
comprised in Khasra No.132 by determining fair market value
thereof @ Rs.24.20 per sq. yd. and for the land comprised in
Khasra No.285/133 @ Rs.15.12 per sq. yd.
RFA No.487/1971 Page No.4 of 7
7. In the appeal, late Lt. Col. Hari Chand prayed that
the compensation be further enhanced by Rs.6,40,000/-.
8. Learned counsel for the parties state that this Court
need not bother itself much with the evidence led and may
dispose of the appeal with reference to a decision of the co-
ordinate Division Bench of this Court reported as 45 (1991)
DLT 131 (DB) Hans Raj Bhalla Vs. UOI.
9. We have perused the decision in Hans Raj Bhalla's
case. Subject matter of the decision was the determination of
fair compensation of land in the same village i.e. Kalu Sarai
relatable to a notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act on 3.8.1963.
10. With reference to an earlier decision of this Court,
where, pertaining to a notification dated 13.11.1959 issued
under Section 4 of the LA Act, 1894 for lands in Village Kalu
Sarai, fair compensation as of 13.11.1959 was assessed at
Rs.17,000/- per bigha for all lands, the Division Bench
enhanced the compensation to Rs.22,000/- per bigha
pertaining to the lands acquired pursuant to the notification
dated 3.8.1963.
11. The principle adopted by this Court was to treat
Rs.17,000/- per bigha as fair market compensation as of
13.11.1959 and suitably enhance the same as time passed by.
RFA No.487/1971 Page No.5 of 7
12. We do likewise. Learned counsel for the parties
state that treating Rs.17,000/- per bigha as fair market value
as of 13.11.1959 and pegging the same at Rs.22,000/- per
month as of 3.8.1963, yearly increase comes to approximately
Rs.1000/- per bigha.
13. Thus, we determine fair market value of the
acquired lands as of 25.8.1962 at Rs.21,000/- per bigha.
14. Noting that the acquisition proceedings commenced
and came to an end prior to 30.4.1982 we note that the issue
has to be decided in light of the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 as in vogue prior to the amendments
incorporated therein.
15. This would mean that Section 25 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 would have to be taken note of as on the
statute book prior to its amendment in the year 1984.
16. We note that the deceased Lt. Col. Hari Chand was not
served with a notice under Section 9 of the LA Act, 1894 and for said
reason could not submit any claim before the Land Acquisition
Collector, meaning thereby, the bar of the unamended Section 25
would not come into force.
17. There is no embargo on enhancing the compensation as
directed.
18. Relatable to the benefit under Section 28, learned
RFA No.487/1971 Page No.6 of 7
counsel for the parties concede that due to the negligent acts of the
legal heirs of the appellant it may be recorded that they would not
be entitled to any interest on the enhanced compensation under
Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the period
15.5.1981 till 17.4.2006.
19. We further direct that the statutory benefits granted by
the learned Reference Court at the rate specified in para 17 of the
impugned order, relatable to the compensation which stands
enhanced today, would not be available to the appellants for the
period 15.5.1981 till 17.4.2006 as conceded by learned counsel for
the appellants.
20. Appellants would be entitled to proportionate court fee on
the enhanced compensation.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
SUNIL GAUR, J.
SEPTEMBER 04, 2008
vg
