Chander Bhan vs Uoi & Anr.
2010 Latest Caselaw 4343 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI



+                     RFA NO. 541 OF 2001



                            Date of    Decision:   15th September,
2010




#     CHANDER BHAN                                         .....
Appellant
!                           Through:     Mr. D. V. Khatri, Advocate


                   Versus



$    UOI & ANR.                                          .....
Respondents
^                           Through:    Mr. Ramesh Ray, Advocate
                            for
                                        R-1.



       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)

This appeal was filed against the judgment and decree dated

17.02.2001 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi enhancing

the compensation to be awarded to the appellant whose land in

village Khera Khurd was acquired pursuant to the notification dated

14/1/94 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Land

Acquisition Collector had awarded compensation @ Rs. 96,875/- per

bigha and upon a reference being made under Section 18 of the Land

Acquisition Act at the instance of the appellant herein the Reference

Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 1,40,230/- per bigha. The

appellant, however, was still not satisfied and so he preferred the

present appeal.

2. The only point urged by the learned counsel for the appellant

was that the Reference Court has awarded the compensation to the

appellant in terms of the Government's policy contained in Ex. P1 but

that policy to the extent it permitted enhancement by 12% in respect

of the lands acquired vide notifications issued after 03.05.1990 is

illegal and arbitrary since the same policy permitted reduction to the

extent of 15% in the market value of the land in respect of the

awards passed on the basis of notifications issued prior to

03.05.1990 and so the Reference Court should have allowed 15%

yearly increase instead of 12% since if reduction was to be to the

extent of 15% increase should also be to the extent of 15% and not

12%.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 (Union of India)

submitted that this court cannot go into the question of legality of

the Government's policy contained in Ex. P1 relied upon by the

Reference Court in the present appeal and also that the appellant in

any case himself having got enhancement relying upon the said

policy is now estopped from impugning that policy decision of the

Government. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 also

submitted that this Court has already upheld the decision of the

Reference Court fixing the same compensation in respect of the land

of other villagers in the same village which had been acquired

pursuant to same notification vide which the land of the present

appellant had been acquired. That unreported decision was given on

04.03.2004 in RFA No. 148/2001. The learned counsel further

submitted that in that case also the reference Court enhanced the

market value of the land in village Khera Khurd by Rs. 43,355/- per

bigha as has been done in the present case also relying upon the

policy Ex. P1.

4. This Court is in full agreement with the submissions of the

learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. Before the Reference

Court the appellant had only relied upon Government's policy Ex.P-1

and the Court followed that policy decision and ordered

enhancement in the compensation payable to the appellant. As per

that policy the government had fixed the minimum price for the

agricultural lands in Delhi at Rs. 4.65 lacs per acre w.e.f. 27/4/90 and

further the said land rate was to be reduced by 15% yearly in cases

of acquisitions carried out pursuant to the notifications issued under

Section 4 before 3/5/90 and in cases of notifications issued after

3/5/90 there was to be increase by 12% yearly. The trial Court has

given the benefit of 12% escalation to the appellant as per the said

policy relied upon by him. If the appellant was aggrieved by the

policy decision of the Government permitting only 12% increase in

the market value of the lands acquired pursuant to the notifications

issued after 03.05.1990 he should have challenged that decision of

the Government in appropriate proceedings and in the present

appeal he cannot impugn that. It is also not the case of the appellant

that any other similarly placed land owner has been granted benefit

of increase of 15%.

5. This appeal therefore lacks merits and is hereby dismissed.

September 15, 2010                                   P.K. BHASIN,J
cl