Bal Krishan Kapahi & Ors. vs Union Of India
2011 Latest Caselaw 682 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+                      RFA No. 582 of 1994

%                              Date of Decision: 4th February, 2011


!   BAL KRISHAN KAPAHI & ORS.                ....Appellants
             Through: Mr. Deepak Khosla and Mr. Inder Singh,
                      Advocates

                                versus

$     UNION OF INDIA                                 ...Respondent
^                           Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, 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(ORAL)

This appeal was preferred against the judgment and decree dated

7th December, 1993 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in

LAC No. 207/1993 arising out of reference made under Section 18 of the

Land Acquisition Act made by the Land Acquisition Collector in respect

of some lands falling in different khasras in village Tigri which had been

acquired vide Award no. 24/73-74 pursuant to the notifications dated 28-

02-1972 and 15-06-1972 under Sections 4 and 6 respectively. The

market value of the land in question was determined by the Land

Acquisition Collector at Rs. 3/- per sq. yd. for levelled land and Rs. 2.5/-

per sq. yd. in respect of the lands which had pits. Since the land owners

were dissatisfied with the compensation awarded to them by the Land

Acquisition Collector a reference under Section 18 was got made which

came to be disposed of by the Reference Court vide impugned judgment

dated 7th December, 1995 and the land owners were awarded

compensation @ Rs.20,000/- per bigha in respect of the leveled land and

Rs. 17,000/- per bigha for the land having pits. The compensation

awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector for the superstructures was

left untouched. Since the land owners were still not satisfied they filed

the present appeal.

2. During the course of the hearing of the appeal it was submitted by

learned counsel for the appellants as well as Union of India that the

market value of the land in village Tigri, which had prior to the

acquisition of the land involved in the present appeal had been acquired

vide notification dated 21-11-66 issued under Section 4 of the Land

Acquisition Act, has been fixed by a Division Bench of this Court in RFA

No. 270/1982 titled "M/s. R.C. Sood & Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India"

on 22nd February, 2002 @ Rs. 20,000/- per bigha and that was now the

best piece of evidence which could be relied upon by this Court while

determining the market value of the appellants' land in the same village

Tigri after giving increase of 10% per annum for the period between 1966

to 1972 as per the judgment of this Court in "Bedi Ram vs. Union of India &

Anr.", 93 (2001) DLT 150 without going into the evidence relied upon by the

Reference Court in the present case which were, in fact, the decisions of

this Court in respect of villages Tuglakabad and Kasumpur. It was

submitted that based upon the market value of land @ Rs. 20,000/- per

bigha fixed in R.C. Sood's (supra) case in respect of the notification of

1966 and after giving 10% yearly increase on that market value in view

of Bedi Ram's judgment (supra) the market value of the land involved in

the present appeal would work out to Rs. 33,613/- per bigha.

3. In view of the afore-said submissions having been made from both

the sides with which I am also in full agreement, this appeal is disposed

of by fixing the market value of the appellants' land @ Rs. 33,613/- per

bigha and to that extent only appellants' claim would stand allowed. In

addition to this relief, the appellants shall also be entitled to other

statutory benefits but excluding the one under Section 23(1A) of the Land

Acquisition Act. The appellants shall also not be entitled to interest on

the enhanced compensation for the period from 20-09-77 till 01-06-79

during which period the reference proceedings had been kept in abeyance

on the prayer of the appellants before the Reference Court and statement

had been made at that time on behalf of the claimants that they would not

be claiming interest for the afore-said period and this position has been

accepted by the learned counsel for the appellants also.

4. Parties are, however, left to bear their respective costs.

P.K. BHASIN,J

FEBRUARY 04, 2011 sh