Union Of India vs Sheo Nath (Thru L.Rs.)
2011 Latest Caselaw 3877 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                     LA APP. NO. 73 OF 2004

                                  Date of Decision: 10th August, 2011


#      UNION OF INDIA                                      ..... Appellant
                                Through:     Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate

                                 Versus

$      SHEO NATH (THRU L.R's)                           ..... Respondents
^                       Through:             Mr. Deepak Khosla, Advocate


       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 appeal filed by the Union of India is directed against the

judgment of the Reference Court whereby the compensation in respect of

the acquired land of the respondents' predecessors-in-interest in village

Wazirabad was enhanced to ` 45,000 per bigha from ` 4600 per bigha

awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector.

2. The learned Reference Court while deciding the Reference under

Section 18 made by the Land Acquisition Collector at the instance of the

predecessors-in-interest of the respondents relied upon a judgment in the

case of "Nand Ram vs. UOI" rendered by another Reference Court on

30/08/88(Ex. A-1) in respect of village Wazirabad arising out of

acquisition of some land pursuant to the notification issued on 17th

November, 1980 which was subsequent to the issuance of the

notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in the

present case which were issued on the same date i.e. on 1st November,

1978. In the afore-said judgment relied upon by the Reference Court while

deciding the Reference arising out of the acquisition proceedings pursuant

to the notification dated 17th November, 1980 the Court had fixed the

market value of the acquired land in Wazirabad at ` 20,000 per bigha. In

the present case the Reference Court has quoted the following

observations from that judgment dated 30/08/88 in the impugned

judgment:

"9. Taking note of the factor that Dhirpur was comparatively more urbanized as compared to the land in the instant case, some difference in the market value has to be maintained, in comparison to what has been fixed vide judgments Ex. A-4 and Ex. A-5 which relate to February, 1979 and November 1978 respectively, and, therefore, market value around ` 17,000 PB would be fair enough as on 1.11.78."

3. The learned Reference Court had noted in the impugned judgment

that the market value of land in village Dhirpur acquired pursuant to a

notification which was also issued on 1st November, 1978, on which date

notifications for village Wazirabad were also issued, had been determined

at ` 26,000 per bigha by the Reference Court. The land owners of village

Dhirpur had approached this Court for further enhancement in

compensation in respect of their acquired lands and this Court in RFA No.

424/1986 decided on 20th July, 1993 had enhanced the market value of the

land to ` 50,000 per bigha. This Court had fixed the same market value in

respect of the land in village Dhirpur which was acquired pursuant to the

notification issued on 15th February, 1979 also. The learned Reference

Court in the present case accordingly enhanced the market value of the

land in respect of village in Wazirabad to ` 45,000 per bigha taking into

consideration the enhancement given by this Court in respect of the lands

in village Dhirpur. This is what was observed by the Reference Court in

para no. 18 of the impugned judgment:

"18. ................... When the judgments passed by the Ld. ADJ are based on village Dhirpur, there is no reason to ignore the same. However, while applying the ratio/difference between the two villages i.e. to say whereas the value of land situated in village Dhirpur was fixed at ` 18,500 to ` 28,960 the value of the land situated at village Wazirabad was fixed at ` 17,000, the compensation of land in question would come to ` 45,000, approximately, as against ` 50,000 fixed for village Dhirpur. I, therefore, enhance the compensation to ` 45,000 per bigha and decide the issues, accordingly."

4. Feeling aggrieved by the enhancement in compensation made by the

Reference Court, the Union of India filed the present appeal. It was

contended by Sh. Sanjay Poddar, learned counsel for the appellant that the

Reference Court was not justified in relying upon the market value of the

lands fixed in respect of some other village (Dhirpur) when the

Government had placed on record the sale deeds of village Wazirabad

itself which were unjustifiably rejected by the Reference Court. Mr.

Poddar cited one judgment of a Division Bench of this Court rendered in a

batch of appeals against the decision of the Reference Court in respect of

village Sahibabad Daulat Pur, out of which the lead case was Laxmi

Narain Bansal vs. Union of India, RFA No. 677/94 decided on 7th

February, 2003. In that judgment it had been held by the Division Bench

that parity in compensation cannot be claimed merely on the ground that

two villages are adjacent to each other but such parity can always be

claimed in case there is material brought on record or circumstances

available to show that the lands were similarly situated as regards

topography, location and advantages available.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Deepak Khosla, learned counsel for the

respondents argued that there was no illegality committed by the

Reference Court in giving enhancement to the respondents taking into

consideration the fact that initially market value of the land in village

Wazirabad was fixed by the Reference Court relying upon the valuation

fixed in respect of village Dhirpur and when this Court enhanced the

market value of the land in village Dhirpur the Reference Court was fully

justified in giving proportionate increase in the market value in respect of

village Wazirabad also taking note of the fact that Wazirabad village was

less developed than Dhirpur village .

6. I have gone through the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court

in "Gajender Singh Vs. Union of India" (RFA No. 424/86) decided on

20th July, 1992 whereby the market value of the land in village Dhirpur

was fixed at ` 50,000 per bigha and which judgment was relied upon by

the learned Reference Court in the present case while enhancing the

market value of the respondents' land in village Wazirabad to ` 45,000 per

bigha. A perusal of this judgment shows that the reason given by the

Division Bench for enhancing the market value of the land in village

Dhirpur was that that village was near the main Mall Road(Kingsway

Camp crossing) and it was also adjoining village Dhaka which, in turn,

was adjoining to Model Town, a developed colony. Therefore, this Court

had enhanced the market value of the land in village Dhirpur on the basis

of material available in that case. No such material was available in the

present case which could justify similar enhancement in the market value

of the land in village Wazirabad and simply relying upon the afore-said

decision in Gajender Singh's case, learned Reference Court was not

justified in enhancing the market value of respondents' land to ` 45,000

per bigha.

7. This appeal accordingly succeeds and the impugned judgment of

Reference Court is set aside.

P.K. BHASIN,J

August 10, 2011 pg/sh