Delhi High Court
Union Of India vs Shri Nanda on 1 February, 2010
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LA. APP. 97/2004
Date of decision : 01.02.2010
IN THE MATTER OF :
UNION OF INDIA ...... Appellant
Through: Mr. Ramesh Ray, Advocate
versus
SHRI NANDA ...... Respondent
Through: Nemo
CORAM
* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
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? Yes
HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL)
1. The present appeal is directed against a judgment dated
01.08.2002 passed by the learned ADJ on a reference received by him under
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟).
By the impugned judgment, the learned ADJ held that the claimant was
entitled to payment of enhanced compensation @ Rs.12,650/- per bigha
over and above the amount of Rs.4,000/- per bigha awarded by the Land
Acquisition Collector in respect of land situated in village Hiran Kudna,
subject matter of Award No.7/87-88. In other words, the market value of
the land was fixed at Rs.16,650/- per bigha and the claimant was held
entitled to the said amount alongwith other statutory benefits in accordance
with law.
2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the Union of India has
preferred the present appeal, which was admitted vide order dated
25.01.2007. Counsel for the appellant states that aggrieved by the
compensation granted by the High Court at Rs.10,750/- per bigha, the land
owners of the same village, whose land was acquired vide notification issued
under Section 4 of the Act dated 31.10.1980, preferred an appeal before the
Supreme Court and claimed that the valuation ought to have been fixed at
Rs.30,000/- per bigha. The said appeal, registered as Civil Appeal
No.5280/2008 entitled „Jeevani & Ors. vs. Union of India‟, was decided by
the Supreme Court, vide order dated 27.08.2008. A copy thereof is handed
over by the learned counsel for the appellant and taken on the record. By
the said order, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court
and remanded the matter to the Reference Court for re-examination as to
the valuation of the land of the appellants therein, which had been acquired
and to pass fresh orders , in accordance with law, after giving the parties an
opportunity of leading evidence in support of their claim. The operative
para of the order is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference :-
"From the submissions made on behalf of the
learned counsel and the material on record, it is
apparent that the matter requires a fresh
determination taking into account all the factors.
Apart from the fact relating to the yield of the lands
in question, having particular regard to the fact that
the lands are situated within the National Capital
Territory of Delhi, where potentiality become
relevant, we set aside the order passed by the High
Court and remand the matter to the Reference Court
for a re-examination as to the valuation of the
appellants‟ lands which had been acquired and to
pass fresh orders, in accordance with law, after
giving the parties an opportunity of leading evidence
in support of their claims.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly."
3. Counsel for the appellant herein states that the present case is
also liable to be remanded back for the reason that in the impugned
judgment dated 01.08.2002, the learned ADJ held that the market value of
the land as determined vide judgment dated 22.02.2002 in LAC
No.1243/1993 entitled „Jai Lal vs. Union of India‟ would be applicable to
the land, subject matter of the present appeal. As a result, the market
value of the land was fixed at Rs.16,650/- per bigha alongwith other
statutory benefits. Counsel for the appellant hands over a copy of the order
dated 22.02.2002 passed by the learned ADJ in LAC 1243/1993, which is
taken on the record. A perusal of the order shows that the learned ADJ
relied upon a judgment of the Reference Court in another matter, pertaining
to the land acquired in village Hiran Kudna vide Award No.11/82-83, in
respect of notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 30.10.1980 and held
that as there was a gap of four years seven months between the date when
land was acquired in the aforesaid case and the date when land was
acquired vide notification dated 10.05.1985 (subject matter of LAC
No.1243/1993), enhancement in compensation could be awarded, by taking
the market price of Rs.10,750/-, as prevailing on 31.10.1980 and allowing
the enhancement of 12% per annum from 31.10.1980 to 10.05.1985.
Accordingly, the claimants in the said case were held entitled to
enhancement in compensation by Rs.12,650/- over and above the amount of
Rs.4,000/- awarded to them by the Land Acquisition Collector, i.e.,
Rs.16,650/- per bigha.
4. Counsel for the appellant states that the aforesaid decision of
the Reference Court dated 22.02.2002 passed in LAC No. 1243/1993, was
challenged by the Union of India by preferring an appeal before this Court,
registered as RFA No.151/2003 entitled „Union of India vs. Jai Lal‟, which
was dismissed vide order dated 16.10.2003. He states that the aforesaid
dismissal order has attained finality as the Union of India did not prefer an
appeal against the said order before the Supreme Court. He however
submits that the present matter is liable to be remanded back to the
Reference Court, in the light of the subsequent order of the Supreme Court
dated 27.8.2008, mentioned above.
5. There is merit in the submission made on behalf of the appellant.
In the case of Jeevani (supra), lands acquired in village Hiran Kudna
pursuant to notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, published on
31.10.1980 were subject matter of consideration, in the light of the
judgment of the High Court fixing the compensation @ Rs.10,750/- per
bigha, as fixed in the present case, on the same analogy. Therefore, in light
of the remand order dated 27.08.2008 passed by the Supreme Court in the
case of Jeevani (supra) in respect of land situated in the same village,
remanding the matter to the Reference Court for re-examination for the
reasons stated therein, it is deemed appropriate to remand the present case
as well to the Reference Court for fresh determination after taking into
consideration the observation as made by the Supreme Court in the order
dated 27.08.2008.
6. The appeal is disposed of.
(HIMA KOHLI)
FEBRUARY 1, 2010/rkb JUDGE
