Citation : 2010 Latest Caselaw 847 Del
Judgement Date : 15 February, 2010
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA 200/2002
Date of decision : 15.02.2010
IN THE MATTER OF :
DAYA NAND ..... Appellant
Through : Mr. Kuldeep Sehrawat, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ramesh Ray, Advocate for R1/UOI.
CORAM
* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may No
be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be No
reported in the Digest?
HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL)
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated
10.10.2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge on a reference
petition filed by the petitioner in respect of the land situated in village
Singhola, covered under Award No.1/95-96 announced on 26.4.1995,
pursuant to the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act (in short 'the Act'), and followed by the notification issued under
Section 6 of the Act dated 29.9.1993.
2. The petitioner was aggrieved by the market value of the
acquired land fixed by the learned LAC at Rs.96,875/- per bigha. By the
impugned judgment, the Reference Court enhanced the market value of the
entire land to Rs.1,30,523/- per bigha and thus held that the petitioner was
entitled to get enhancement in compensation @ Rs.33,648/- per bigha. In
addition thereto, the petitioner was also held entitled to other statutory
benefits as specified in para 12 of the impugned judgment.
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner has filed the
present petition, wherein the enhancement in compensation for the acquired
land is sought @ Rs.3,00,000/- per bigha.
4. Counsel for the respondent draws the attention of this Court to
para 8 of the impugned order to submit that the petitioner claimed fixation
of the market value of the entire land @ Rs.1,30,523/- per bigha by relying
upon the judgment passed in LAC No.90/2000 entitled Surinder Singh vs.
UOI & Anr. decided on 29.8.2001. The Reference Court took into
consideration the said judgment and drawing a parity therewith, fixed the
market value of the entire land also at Rs.1,30,533/- as on 19.3.1993, i.e.,
the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. He submits
that in these circumstances, no further enhancement can be claimed by the
petitioner, beyond what was granted to the petitioner as that was the rate
he had himself claimed.
5. Counsel for the appellant concedes the aforesaid position.
Parties draw the attention of this Court to the judgment of the Division
Bench dated 6.4.2004, passed in the case of Ram Chander & Ors. vs. UOI
Etc., reported as 2004 (74) DRJ 182 (DB). The aforesaid judgment also
pertains to the land situated in village Singola under the same award,
wherein the Division Bench, after considering the judgment of the Reference
Court impugned in the said appeal, did not find any infirmity therein and
dismissed the appeal of the land owners.
6. As the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge,
impugned in the aforesaid appeal is identical to the one in the present case,
and has been upheld by the Division Bench in the case of Ram Chander
(supra), nothing further survives in the present appeal. Following the
aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench, the present appeal is dismissed,
while affirming the impugned order.
7. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
(HIMA KOHLI) JUDGE FEBRUARY 15, 2010 sk/rkb
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!