Indraj (Deceased) Through Lr???S ... vs Union Of India And Anr.
2010 Latest Caselaw 2988 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                        LA.APP. 523-536/2005


                                                 Reserved on : 18.03.2010
                                                 Pronounced on: 01.07.2010
IN THE MATTER OF :

INDRAJ (DECEASED) THROUGH LR'S AND ORS.             ..... Appellants
                        Through: Mr. B.P. Gupta, Advocate

                   versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.                                    ..... Respondents
                               Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate with
                               Mr. Ramesh Ray, Advocate for respondent
                               No.1/Union of India.
                               Mr.Amit Mehra, Advocate for Mr. Ajay Verma,
                               Advocate for respondent No.2/DDA.

CORAM

* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

     1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may         Yes
        be allowed to see the Judgment?

     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?        Yes

     3. Whether the judgment should be                Yes
        reported in the Digest?

HIMA KOHLI, J.

1. The appellants are aggrieved by a judgment and order dated

02.04.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge on a reference

received by him under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

(hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), in respect of the land situated in the

revenue estate of village Kilokari under Award No.1457 pronounced on

03.01.1963, pursuant to issuance of a notification under Section 4 of the Act

dated 13.11.1959, followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act,

dated 17.08.1962.

2. Under the aforesaid Award dated 03.01.1963, the Land

Acquisition Collector (LAC) divided the acquired land into two blocks, Block I

& Block II. The market value of the acquired land, falling in Block I, i.e.,

land which was situated near the built up area, was determined @

Rs.4,500/- per bigha and land falling in Block II, which was under

cultivation, was determined @ Rs.2,500/- per bigha. The possession of the

acquired land was taken by the respondents after passing of the Award.

Dissatisfied by the determination of the prevalent market value of the land,

the predecessors-in-interest of the appellants preferred a reference petition

under Section 18 of the Act on 02.12.1963, claiming inter alia that the

market value at the relevant time was Rs.30/- per sq. yard.

3. As per the predecessors-in-interest of the appellants, Sh.Indraj

and Smt. Ram Devi, they had filed an application for enhancement of

compensation and prayed inter alia that the awarded compensation be paid

to them, which they would be willing to accept under protest. On

26.06.1963, compensation @ Rs.4,000/- per bigha was duly received by the

said landowners. However, it was not mentioned on the receipt that the said

amount was being received by them under protest. As a result, although

the reference petition filed by them was received in the office of the LAC on

4.12.1963, he refused to forward the same to the learned ADJ for

adjudication on the ground that the compensation was received by Sh.Indraj

and Smt. Ram Devi without any protest. Aggrieved by the said refusal on

the part of the LAC to forward the reference petition to the Additional District

Judge, Delhi, for enhancement of compensation, the predecessors-in-

interest of the appellants filed a Civil Writ Petition in this Court, registered as

Civil Writ Petition No.387/1984. After considering the submissions of the

petitioners in the aforesaid petition, a single Judge of this Court held that

since late Shri Indraj and Smt. Ram Devi had already filed an application

lodging their protest, it was not necessary for them to lodge their protest on

the pay bill and that the LAC ought to have at least heard them before

refusing to make a reference under Section 18 of the Act. Accordingly, the

rejection order of the LAC dated 03.10.1983 was set aside and he was

directed to forward the reference petition to the District Judge for proper

adjudication in accordance with law.

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 10.11.1986, the reference

petition filed by late Shri Indraj and Smt.Ram Devi was forwarded by the

LAC to the Reference Court. In the reference petition, the predecessors-in-

interest of the appellants claimed an enhancement in the compensation for

the acquired land @ Rs.30/- per sq. yard, apart from other statutory

benefits. The Reference Court framed the issues on 16.09.1987 in the

following manner:-

"1. To what enhancement in the amount of compensation, if any, are the claimants entitled?

2. Relief."

5. After considering the documentary evidence produced by the

appellants/claimants in the form of certified copies of some judgments

including the decision of the High Court in RFA No.117/94, that of the ADJ in

LAC No.40/87 and the compensation granted in Award No.220/86-87,

pertaining to village Kilokari, involving notification of the land under Section

4 of the Act dated 13.11.1959, the Reference Court concluded that the fair

market value of the land on the date of the notification under Section 4 of

the Act could be assessed @ Rs.26,000/- per bigha. However, the aforesaid

enhancement in compensation was declined to the appellants on the ground

that the said amount was beyond the rates claimed by their predecessors-in-

interest before the LAC. As a result, issue No.1 was answered against the

appellants by holding that they were not entitled to any enhancement in

compensation. Aggrieved by the said order and judgment, the appellants

have preferred the present appeal.

6. Counsel for the appellants relied upon a judgment of the Division

Bench of this Court dated 10.10.1984 in RFA 117/1974 entitled, "Angoori

Devi vs. Union of India & Anr.", in support of his submission that the

appellant therein was identically placed as the appellants herein and hence,

his clients were also entitled to the same relief of enhancement in

compensation as granted to her in the said case. In the case of Angoori

Devi (supra), the claimant was granted compensation @ Rs.26,000/- per

bigha for identical land situated in village Kilokari, covered under the same

award. Support was sought to be drawn from a judgment in the case of

State of Punjab vs. Karnail Singh & Ors. reported as 1965 PLR Vol.LXVII

788, to state that the Reference Court ought to have considered the

circumstances of the case at hand and permitted the appellants

enhancement in compensation @ Rs.26,000/- per bigha. Pleadings before

the Reference Court were also pointed out to urge that in its written

statement the respondent/UOI had not opposed grant of compensation to

the appellants and hence could not be permitted to take the ground that as

the claimants did not specify any amount in compensation in response to

notices issued under Sections 9 & 10 of the Act and had simply stated that

the land be released from acquisition, they were not entitled to receive

enhancement in compensation. It was, therefore, submitted that failure to

frame a specific issue in this regard has resulted in depriving the appellants

of their right to lead evidence on the point. In support of the said

submission, reliance was placed on the following judgments:

(i) Mohan Lal vs. Anandibai and others AIR 1971 SC

(ii) Bhag Singh and others vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh (1985) 3 SCC 737

(iii) Sanjay Gera vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority and Anr. 2005 (2) CCC 97 SC

7. In support of his plea that once the court had taken a view that

the claimants were entitled to payment of enhanced compensation, they

should not be denied the same on technical grounds, the decision of the

Supreme Court in the case of Chandrashekhar & Ors. vs. Additional Special

Land Acquisition Officer reported as 2009 VII AD (SC) 829 was cited by

the counsel for the appellants.

8. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent/Union of India

supported the impugned judgment and order and submitted that the

Reference Court was justified in arriving at the conclusion that notices under

Sections 9 and 10 of the Act were duly served on the appellants on

28.09.1962 and in view of the fact that they had not led any evidence to the

contrary or disputed their service as per the statement under Section 19 of

the Act, either in the reference petition, or in the present appeal, the

embargo placed under the unamended provisions of Section 25 of the Act

would apply. He relied on a decision of the High Court in the case of Land

Acquisition Officer-cum-DSWO, A.P. vs. B.V. Reddy & Sons reported as

(2002) 3 SCC 463 to urge that the Reference Court did not have the

jurisdiction to award an amount in excess of the amount claimed by the

claimants and as in the present case, the predecessors-in-interest of the

claimants only sought release of the acquired land but did not mention any

compensation, they could not claim enhanced compensation beyond the

amount awarded by the LAC. It was also stated that the appellants did not

seek any indulgence of the Court for the omission on their part to make such

a claim for enhancement in the awarded amount for invoking sub-clause (3)

of Section 25 of the unamended Act.

9. I have heard the counsels for the parties and carefully

considered their respective submissions.

10. From a narration of the facts as noted above, it is not in dispute

that the compensation granted by the LAC in respect of the land situated in

village Kilokari and acquired under Award No. 1457, was enhanced by the

Reference Court to Rs.26,000/- per bigha. The only issue is as to whether

the appellants are entitled to any enhancement beyond the rates claimed by

them before the LAC.

11. It is an undisputed position that Smt. Angoori Devi, the appellant

in RFA 117/1974, owner of Khasra Nos.574/1, 580 and 754 situated in

village Kilokari, had not claimed any amount towards compensation payable

in the wake of notices issued to her under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act.

Instead, she sought release of the acquired land. This is borne out from a

perusal of the Award No.1457, wherein the land holdings of Smt. Angoori

Devi find mention at serial nos. 8, 10 & 15 under the details of the Khasra

nos. of the acquired land and the ownership. While dealing with the case of

individual land owners who appeared before the Collector pursuant to

notices issued under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act, the name of Angoori Devi

features at serial no.2, wherein it was recorded that she did not mention any

amount of compensation but stated that the land in question be released.

12. Despite the aforesaid position, upon a reference petition

submitted by Smt. Angoori Devi, vide order dated 03.11.1973, the learned

ADJ, Delhi assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.8,500/- per

bigha for Block-I and Rs.7,500/- per bigha for Block-II, apart from other

statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the said determination of market value,

Smt. Angoori Devi preferred an appeal in the High Court. The said appeal

was decided by a Division Bench, vide order dated 10.10.1984, and the

compensation was awarded to the appellant @ Rs.26,000/- per bigha, for

the same reasons as recorded in an earlier decision dated 08.03.1984 in

RFA 381/1970 entitled Chand Behari vs. UOI which was in respect of the

same land in the same village covered under the same notification issued

under Section 4 of the Act, dated 13.11.1959.

13. All the attendant facts and circumstances of the case in hand are

identical to those in the case of Angoori Devi (supra). The lands in both the

cases are situtated in the same village, i.e., village Kilokari. They were

acquired under the same Award bearing No.1457. Just as is the case in the

present appeal, Smt. Angoori Devi had also not claimed any enhancement in

compensation, after receipt of notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act

and had sought release of the acquired land. Inspite of the same, she was

finally awarded enhancement in the compensation @ Rs.26,000/- per bigha

by the High Court.

14. In view of the aforesaid decision, there is no reason as to why

this Court should travel further or examine any other plea raised by the

parties. Rather, the aforesaid judgment ought to be followed and

compensation be directed to be granted to the appellants herein on parity

with the case of Angoori Devi (supra).

15. Therefore, without going into the issue of the application of the

unamended provision of Section 25 of the Act, or any other issue, in the

peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the appellants are held

entitled to the grant of compensation @ Rs.26,000/- per bigha, apart from

all other statutory benefits and interest in accordance with law. Whatever

amount has already been paid to the appellants, shall of course be deducted

while making the calculations. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.

16. Appeal is allowed with costs.

                                                              (HIMA KOHLI)
JULY   1, 2010                                                   JUDGE
rkb