Delhi High Court
Horam (Deceased) Thru Lrs. & Ors. vs Uoi & Anr. on 10 January, 2011
Author: P.K.Bhasin
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LA APP. NO. 188 OF 2007
Date of Decision: 10th January, 2011
# HORAM(DECEASED) THRU LRS. & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Inder Singh, Advocate
Versus
$ UOI & 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 appellants against the judgment and
decree dated 17th March, 2007 passed by the learned Additional District
Judge in LAC No. 147/06 whereby compensation in respect of the
appellants' land in village Aali after its acquisition was determined at
`1,96,940 per bigha. That much compensation was fixed by the Trial
Court when a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 came to be made by the Land Acquisition Collector at the instance of
the appellants since they were claiming compensation @ `50 lakhs per
bigha. It appears that the learned Additional District Judge had fixed the
market value of the land in village Aali at the aforesaid rate not only in
respect of the appellants' land but also in respect of the lands of many
other villagers also of Aali whose land had also been acquired by the
notification dated 31st October, 1996 and the Award No. 4/98-88 which are
the subject matter of the present case also.
2. A large number of appeals came to be filed by different land owners
challenging the fixation of market value of their land @ ` 1,96,940 per
bigha. The present appeal was also a part of that bunch of appeals.
However, the present appeal came to be segregated from those appeals
because of death of one of the appellants which necessitated initiation of
proceedings for bringing on record his legal representatives. The other
appeals came to be disposed of by this Court vide judgment dated 3 rd June,
2010 which is now reported in 2010 (170) Delhi Law Times 371 (Bhule
Ram vs. UOI). Vide that judgment the learned single Judge fixed the
market value of the land in village Aali @ ` 9,53,130 per acre.
3. During the course of hearing of the present appeal I was informed
by the counsel for the appellants that the said judgment of this Court in
Bhule Ram's case has been challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court
and the matter is pending there. However, learned counsel for respondent
No.1 submitted that he is not aware of the pendency of any appeal before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court but in any case, the appellants now cannot get
compensation more than what has been awarded by this Court in Bhule
Ram's case.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants while not disputing the legal
position that the aforesaid judgment of this Court in Bhule Ram's case
would be applicable to the facts of the present case also submitted that the
appellants may also like to challenge the fixation of the market value of
their land which has already been fixed in Bhule Ram's case, if they are so
advised, and as far as the present appeal is concerned they have nothing
more to urge.
5. The operative portion of the judgment of this Court in Bhule Ram's
case is to be found in para 43 which is being reproduced below:-
"Accordingly, the appeals are partially allowed.
The fair market value of the land situated in village
Aali in respect of the notification issued under
Section 4 of the Act dated 31.10.1996, is
determined as Rs. 9,53,130/- per acre. Besides the
above, the appellants shall also be entitled to 30%
solatium on the above market value of the land
under Section 23(2) of the Act, 12% additional
amount under Section 23 (1-A) of the Act from the
date of notification issued under Section 4(1) of
the Act to the date of the Collector taking
possession of the land or making of the award,
whichever is earlier. On the enhanced market
value, interest will also be paid under Section 28 of
the act @ 9% p.a. from the date of
dispossession for the first year and thereafter, @
15% p.a. till the date of tender of compensation.
Interest will also be paid on the solatium and
additional amount in view of the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Sunder vs. Union of
India reported as 93(2001) DLT 569. The
appellants shall also be entitled to proportionate
costs in the appeals."
6. The present appeal is, therefore, also disposed of in terms of the
aforesaid observations and decision in Bhule Ram's judgment.
January 10, 2011 P.K. BHASIN,J
nk
