Uoi vs Hari Singh Thru L.R???S & Anr
2009 Latest Caselaw 2772 Del

                                                      UNREPORTABLE

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                            L.A. App. No.339/2007


                                   Date of Decision: July 22, 2009


        UOI                            ..... Appellant
                             Through Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate

                        Versus


        HARI SINGH THRU L.R'S & ANR        ..... Respondents
                      Through Mr. B.B.Gupta, Advocate


        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA

1.      Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
        judgment? No
2.      To be referred to the reporter or not? No
3.      Whether the judgment should be reported in the 'Digest'? No

REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL)

C.M. No.15230/2007

This is an application by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 3A

and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 5 of the

Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. For

the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned.

The application is disposed of.

C.M. Nos.5583/2009 & 5584/2009

These are two applications; one for bringing on record the legal

representatives of respondent No.1(ii), namely, Shri Raj Kumar Goyal

who is stated to have died on August 16, 2008 and, the other for

condonation of delay in filing the application.

Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection if the

applications are allowed. Accordingly, the delay in filing the

application for bringing on record the legal representatives of

Shri Raj Kumar Goyal is condoned and consequently, his legal

representatives, whose names are given in paragraph 2 of the

application being C.M. No.5583 of 2009 are brought on record. The

amended memo of parties is taken on record.

Both the applications are disposed of.

L.A. App. No.339/2007

This appeal has been preferred by Union of India against the

judgment of the reference Court dated July 27, 2006 whereby the

land-owners have been held entitled to compensation at Rs.14,340/-

per bigha for their land situated within the revenue estate of Village

Mahipalpur, Delhi acquired vide notification dated January 23, 1965

regarding which the Land Acquisition Collector had made award on

April 29, 1974. The reference Court has also held the respondents

entitled to a sum of Rs. 37,221.17P for superstructure on the acquired

land and to an additional sum under Section 23(1A) of the Land

Acquisition Act @ 12% per annum from the date of notification under

Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, till the date of the award or

dispossession, whichever is earlier.

The reference Court has based its decision on a judgment of

Division Bench of this Court dated July 17, 1991 passed in RFA

No.122 of 1975 titled Hoshiar Singh Versus Union of India . It is

not disputed that the said judgment pertains to the same notification

and to the same village as in the present appeal. In this view of the

matter, I find no merit in the appeal insofar as the award of

compensation at Rs.14,340/- per bigha is concerned.

As regards the amount of Rs.37,221.17P which has been

awarded for superstructure, I have perused the judgment and the

evidence on which the reference Court has relied upon and I find no

infirmity in the same.

The only other point on which the appeal has been preferred is

with regard to the grant of additional amount under Section 23(1A) of

the Land Acquisition Act @ 12% per annum on the market value of the

land from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land

Acquisition Act till the date of the award or dispossession whichever is

earlier.

The amending Act whereby Section 23 (1A) was added to the

principal Act was introduced in Parliament on April 30, 1982 and it

became a law on September 25, 1984. A question arose before a

Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of K S

Paripoornan Versus State of Kerala and Others, AIR 1995

Supreme Court 1012, whether the amending Section would have

retrospective operation or would apply only from a prospective date.

The Supreme Court has held as under:-

"(1) Section 23(1A) providing for additional compensation is attracted in every case where reference was pending under Section 18 before the Court {Section 23(1A)}.

(2) No additional compensation is payable in appeals pending on or after 24th September, 1984 either in High Court or this Court.

(3) Additional compensation under Section 23(1A) is also payable in all those cases where the proceedings were pending and the award had not been made by the Collector on or before 30th April, 1982 {Section 30(1)(a)}.

(4) Similarly every land owner is entitled to additional compensation where the land acquiring proceedings started

after 24th April, 1982 whether the award by the Collector was made before 24th September, 1984 or not {Section 30(1)(b)}.

(5) Additional compensation under Section 23(1A) is liable to be paid by the Collector as well (Section 15 of the Act)."

Relying upon the said judgment which has been followed by this

Court in the case of Bedi Ram Versus Union of India & Anr.,

reported in 93 (2001) Delhi Law Times 150 (DB), learned counsel for

the appellant has submitted that in this case, award by the Land

Acquisition Collector was made on April 29, 1974 much before the

amending provision came into operation and, therefore, the

land-owners ought not to have been granted interest under Section

23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act.

In view of the decision of the Supreme Court and the decision of

this Court, I agree with the submission of the counsel for the

appellant. Accordingly, the impugned judgment passed by the

reference Court is modified to the extent that the land-owners as per

the amended memo of parties shall not be entitled to additional

amount under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act.

The appeal is disposed of.

REKHA SHARMA, J.

JULY 22, 2009 PC/ka