Sudhir Kumar & Anr. vs Uoi & Anr.
2010 Latest Caselaw 3971 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI*

+                              RFA No. 285/2003

%                                  Date of Decision: 27th August, 2010


!     SUDHIR KUMAR & ANR.                             ..... Appellants
                  Through:           Mr. Sudhanshu Tomar, Advocate.

                                 versus


$     UOI & ANR.                                       ..... Respondents
^                       Through:     Mr. Ramesh Ray, Advocate for R-
                                     1/UOI.
                                     Mr. Rakesh Mittal, Advocate for R-
                                     2.
      CORAM:
*     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN

1. Whether 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)

                             JUDGMENT

P.K.BHASIN, J(ORAL)

The appellants are legal heirs of the land owner Mauji whose land in

village Nawada was acquired by the Land Acquisition Collector vide

Award No. 159/1986-87 dated 17/09/86 pursuant to the notification No. F

9(16)/84 L&B dated 27th January, 1984 under Section 4 of the Land

Acquisition Act which had been issued in respect of 373 bighas and 17

biswas in village Nawada. The Land Acquisition Collector had determined

the market value of the acquired land at ` 17,800 per bigha. Since the

claimants-appellants were not satisfied with that much compensation they

got a reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for

enhancement of compensation. The reference (LAC No. 882/93) was

disposed of by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment dated

1st August, 2002 enhancing the compensation to ` 36,400 per bigha and

further statutory benefits were also granted to the appellants herein. The

appellants, however, were still not satisfied and so they filed the present

appeal.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. It is not in

dispute that even the Land Acquisition Collector while fixing the value of

the land in village Nawada had observed that the said village was at par

with adjoining villages Matiala, Hastsal and Kakrola and taking the

similarity in respect of these villages he had arrived at the above referred

value of the land in village Nawada which was based on the decision of

Reference Court in respect of adjoining village Kakrola which was also

acquired vide separate notification dated 27th January, 1984. Even the

Reference Court has found all these three villages to be falling in the same

category and relying upon one award No. 164/1986-87 in respect of village

Matiala, which was exhibited as Ex.A-2, had enhanced the value of

appellants' land to ` 36,400 per bigha. It is also not in dispute that against

the said award in respect of village Matiala different appeals were filed

which came to be disposed of by this Court vide common judgment dated

23rd December, 1999 in RFA No. 280/92 "Puran Singh vs. Union of

India" whereby the land rate of village Matiala was enhanced to ` 47,224

per bigha.

3. Counsel for appellants have argued that since the Land Acquisition

Collector as well as the Reference Court have not found any difference in

respect of the villages Nawada, Matiala and Kakrola the appellants are

entitled to the benefit of the judgment dated 23rd December 1999 of the

Division Bench of this Court in respect of village Matiala. He also cited

one decision of the Supreme Court in JT 1988 (4) SC 260, " Nand Ram

Vs. State of Haryana". Learned counsel for the respondents did not have

anything to argue in opposition to this plea of the appellants and in my

view rightly so because there is hardly any reason to deny the benefit of

valuation fixed by the Division Bench of this Court in respect of village

Matiala to the appellants in respect of their land in village Nawada which

has been found by the LAC as well as the trial Court to be similarly

situated.

4. This appeal, therefore, succeeds and the value of the appellants' land

is also fixed at ` 47,224 per bigha. The other benefits given to the

appellants vide impugned judgment dated 1st August, 2002 shall, however,

remain undisturbed. The appeal stands allowed and disposed of

accordingly.

P.K. BHASIN,J August 27, 2010 nk