Phire Ram vs Uoi & Anr.
2011 Latest Caselaw 582 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+                      RFA NO. 175 OF 2002

                                  Date of Decision: 1st February, 2011

#              PHIRE RAM                                  ..... Appellant
^                               Through: Mr. Deepak Khosla & Mr.
                                         Inder Singh, Advocates.


                                 Versus
$              UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                ..... Respondents
                             Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate
                                      For UOI.

      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 by the appellant challenging the judgment and

decree dated 6th December, 2001 passed by the Additional District Judge

in LAC No. 363/84 (LAC 439A/2001) whereby while giving some

enhancement in compensation to the appellant in respect of his acquired

land in village Dallu Pura the learned Judge did not award an interest on

the enhanced amount for the period from 4-1-97 to 4-10-2001 since

during that period the proceedings had remained in abeyance because of

the pendency of a Reference under Sections 30-31 of the Act. After the

disposal of that Reference this Reference under Section 18 was revived on

28-11-01.

2. As far as the enhancement in compensation awarded by the

Reference Court is concerned the appellant is now not aggrieved in view

of the fact that the same had been awarded following the decision of this

Court dated 24th August, 2001 in "Rattan Lal Vs. Union of India" (RFA

No. 338/1994) and the Supreme Court has not given any further

enhancement to the land owners when they challenged Rattan Lal's

judgment.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused

the record of the Reference Court with regard to the denial of interest on

the enhanced compensation for some period.

4. A perusal of the Reference Court's records shows that after

entertaining Reference made by the Land Acquisition Collector at the

instance of appellant, the Reference Court on coming to know that there

was Reference under Sections 30-31 of the Land Acquisition Act pending

passed an order on 24th January, 1986 staying the Reference proceedings

under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act sine die till the decision of

the Reference under Sections 30-31. After the disposal of the Reference

under Sections 30 -31, the appellant had moved the Reference Court for

revival of the present reference and the same came to be revived in

January 2001 and after trial the same was disposed of by the Reference

Court vide impugned judgment dated 6th December, 2001.

5. As far as the challenge of the appellant to the grant of interest to

respondent No.1 for the period during which the reference proceedings had

remained stayed sine die is concerned, this Court finds merit in it in view

of the decision of full bench decision of this Court in "Chander Vs. Union

of India & Anr.", 2005 VII AD (Delhi) 125. In that case the full bench

came to the conclusion that where reference proceedings are stayed sine

die by an order of the Court to await the decision of proceedings under

Sections 30-31 of the Land Acquisition Act, the land owner is entitled to

interest on the enhanced compensation in case of his succeeding in the

reference proceedings. In the present case, since the appellant had not

made any request for staying the reference proceedings because of the

pendency of the reference under Sections 30-31 and the Reference Court

on its own had stayed the proceedings the appellant could not be denied

the benefit of interest on the enhanced compensation. So, he is entitled to

get the same. Learned counsel for the UOI had very fairly submitted that

the appellant herein is also entitled to get the benefit of Section 23(1A) of

the Land Acquisition Act in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in

"K.S. Paripoornan vs. State of Kerala & Ors.", AIR 1995 Supreme

Court 1012.

6. This appeal is, therefore, disposed of by granting to the appellant

interest on the enhanced compensation even for the period for 4-1-97 to 4-

10-2001 and also the benefit under Section 23 (1A) of the Land

Acquisition Act. No order as to costs.

February 01, 2011                                       P.K. BHASIN,J
nk