Delhi High Court
Suraj Bhan vs Uoi & Ors. on 18 December, 2009
Author: S.L.Bhayana
HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI
LA.APP. No. 258/2009
Judgment reserved on: 22nd October 2009
Judgment pronounced on: 18th December 2009
SURAJ BHAN ...... APPELLANT
Through: Mr. I.S. Dahiya, Adv.
Versus
UOI & ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS
Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Adv. for UOI
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.L. BHAYANA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest or not?
Yes
S.L. BHAYANA, J
The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the
award/order passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi in LAC
No.35/2004 dated 20.7.2006.
2. The brief facts of the present case are that the land of the
appellant situated at village Tikri Kalan was acquired vide award
No.18/1997-98 by the Government. The Government acquired total
land measuring 140 bighas 2 biswa 12 biswani for public purpose for
construction of 40 metre wide road for PVC market under the planned
development of Delhi at public expense. The Government had issued a
notification under Section 4 of the Act on 16.11.1995. Since there
was urgency of the scheme, the provisions of Section 17(1) of the Act
were made applicable and the Government issued a declaration under
Section 6 of the Act on 03.1.1996. After considering the claims filed
by the interested persons pursuant to notices under Sections 9 and 10
LA. APP. No. 258/2009 Page 1 of 3
of the Act, the Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value
of the land @ Rs.1,68,000/- per bigha. Thereafter, a reference was
made in respect of award no.2/97-98 village Tikri Kalan to the learned
ADJ. The learned ADJ disposed of the reference vide impugned
judgment dated 20.7.2006 fixing the market value of the acquired
land @ Rs.1,73,040/- per bigha.
3. The learned ADJ awarded the compensation of Rs.1,73,040 per
bigha to the petitioners. The petitioners have also been awarded to
30% solatium under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act on the
market value of land fixed by the court. The petitioners have been
further entitled to additional amount of 12% on the market value fixed
in this case, under Section 23-1(A) of the Act from the date of
notification under Section 4 of the Act to the date of dispossession or
award whichever is earlier. The petitioners have been further entitled
to interest on the market value of the land fixed by this Court under
Section 28 of the Act at 9% per annum from the date of award or
dispossession whichever is earlier till the expiry of one year and
thereafter at 15% per annum till payment.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the
appellant is not entitled to claim any interest for 868 days delay in
filing the appeal and also the costs from the respondents. On
22.10.2009, the application for condonation of 868 days delay in filing
the appeal was allowed, subject to this condition that the appellant
shall not get any interest for this period and also the costs. Learned
counsel for the appellant had also made a statement that the
appellant shall not claim any interest for this period of 868 days and
also the costs if the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
5. Learned counsels for both the parties, at the outset, have
submitted that the issue has already been dealt with by the Division
LA. APP. No. 258/2009 Page 2 of 3
Bench of this Court in LA.APP. No. 193/2006 titled "Pratap Singh
(dead) through LRs vs. Union of India & Ors.", The Division Bench has
enhanced the market value of the land for Block-A to Rs.2,15,160/- per
bigha and for Block-B to Rs.1,73,500/- per bigha accordingly.
6. Since the present case is covered by the aforesaid judgment of
the Division Bench of this Court and keeping in view the facts and
circumstances of the case, the appeal is partly allowed. The appellant
shall be entitled to revised market value of the land @ Rs.2,15,160/-
per bigha instead of Rs.1,73,040/- per bigha along with the statutory
benefits allowed by the learned ADJ. It is, however, clarified that the
appellant shall not get interest for 868 days and also the costs of the
appeal and the suit.
7. With these observations, the appeal stands disposed of.
S.L.BHAYANA, J.
December 18, 2009
