Uoi vs Jai Chand & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 3780 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                          LAA 1008/2008


+                                Date of Decision: 5th August, 2011

#     UOI                                             ...Appellant
!                             Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate

                              Versus

$     JAI CHAND & ORS                         ....Respondents
                Through: Mr. Deepak Khosla & Mr. Inder Singh,
                         Advocates for R-1 & R-2
                         Mr. Amit Mehra, Advocate for Mr.Ajay
                         Verma, Advocate for DDA/R-3

      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:

This is an appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,

1984 for setting aside the judgment dated 30-07-2008 given by the

learned Additional District Judge in LAC No. 136/1/2008 whereby

while giving enhancement in compensation to the respondents for their

acquired land in village Dallupura the Reference Court had awarded

interest on the enhanced amount even for the period from the date of

dismissal in default of the Reference case till the date of its restoration

and the Government is aggrieved only by the grant of interest for that

period.

2. The facts which only are relevant for the disposal of this appeal

are that at the instance of the respondents - land owners, the Land

Acquisition Collector had made a reference under Section 18 of the

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 since they were not satisfied with the

compensation fixed by him in respect of their lands which had been

acquired. The Government contested the reference and after

considering the evidence adduced during the trial the learned Reference

Court enhanced the market value of the acquired land. There is no

dispute raised by the government in respect of the market value which

had been fixed by the Reference Court. The grievance of the appellant

- Union of India is that on one date of hearing there was no appearance

on behalf of the respondents - claimants before the Reference Court

and consequently the reference case was dismissed in default and after

many years the respondents - claimants had sought restoration of their

case and it was finally restored.

3. It was submitted by Shri Sanjay Poddar, learned counsel for the

appellant - Union of India that the learned Reference Court was not

justified in granting interest to the respondents - claimants on the

enhanced compensation for the period during which the reference had

remained dismissed since that delay cannot be attributed to the

Government. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents -

claimants submitted that the learned Reference Court has awarded

interest to them even for the afore-said period in dispute after noticing

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Khazan Singh vs.

Union of India", AIR 2002 SC 726 wherein it was held by the Supreme

Court that a reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition

Act cannot be dismissed on account of non-appearance of the claimants.

It was also submitted that under similar circumstances in one case

reported as "Union of India vs. Shaukat Rai", 2009 (X) Apex

Decisions (Delhi) 139 I have already dismissed appeal of the Union of

India and that judgment has not been challenged by the Union of India.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant - Union of India did not

dispute the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that

my decision in Shaukat Rai's case(supra) has not been challenged by

the Government. In the said case I have taken the view that since the

Reference Court cannot dismiss a reference under the Land Acquisition

Act due to non-appearance of the claimants in view of the above

referred judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Khazan Singh's

case, the claimants - land owners cannot be deprived of the interest on

the enhanced compensation if be awarded by the Reference Court even

for the period from the date of dismissal of the reference in default till

the date of its restoration. I have, therefore, no reason to take a

different view now.

5. This appeal is accordingly dismissed but without any order as to

costs.

P.K. BHASIN,J

AUGUST 5, 2011 sh