Delhi High Court
Birje & Ors. vs Uoi & Anr. on 10 January, 2011
Author: P.K.Bhasin
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA 286 OF 2001
% Date of Decision: 10th January, 2011
! BIRJE & ORS. ....Appellants
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosh &
Ms. Rupali S. Ghosh,
Advocates
versus
$ UOI & ANR. ...Respondents
^ Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Adv. for
R-1
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)
The present appeal was filed by the appellants challenging the
Reference Court's judgment and decree dated 24th April, 2001 in LAC
No. 98/1999 whereby compensation in respect of the appellants' land in
village Khampur, acquired by the Government vide award no. 2/1994-95
was determined at ` 1,18,600/- per bigha as on 9th March, 1992. The
learned Reference Court had fixed the said market value relying upon one
judgment in respect of the same village arising out of the same award
which is the subject matter of the present appeal. It appears that even the
appellants' prayer before the Reference Court was to fix the market value
to their land at the aforesaid rate of ` 1,18,600/- per bigha which had
been fixed in respect of some other land by the Reference Court vide
judgment Ex. PW-1/F. After the appellants had got the desired relief, it
appears, they decided to claim further enhancement in compensation and
therefore, they filed the present appeal in which the prayer was made for
fixing the market value of their land at ` 1,50,000/- per bigha.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. During the course
of hearing of this appeal today learned counsel for the appellants had
while half heartedly claiming further enhancement in compensation,
argued that the appellants should be given at least the benefit of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Sunder Vs. Union of India"
reported as 2001 (93) DLT 569 wherein it had been held that land owners
are entitled to interest on the solatium amount as well as additional
amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act. Opposing
this application, Mr. Sanjay Poddar, learned counsel for the Union of
India submitted that the appellants having themselves claimed fixation of
the compensation of their land at the rate of ` 1,18,600/- per bigha before
the Reference Court are now estopped from claiming any further
enhancement by filing the present appeal and the same therefore, is liable
to be rejected as far as the prayer for further enhancement of the market
value of their land is concerned.
As far as the appellants' prayer for grant of benefit of judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunder's case (supra) is concerned, Mr.
Poddar very fairly submitted that they are entitled to that relief in view of
the fact that the appellants' claim for enhanced compensation as well as
the statutory benefits had not been disposed of before the pronouncement
of the judgment in Sunder's case (supra).
3. After hearing the counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view
that there is no merit in the appeal as far as the appellants' claim for
further enhancement in the market value of their acquired land is
concerned in view of the fact that the Reference Court had granted them
the relief which they had prayed for and that relief also they had claimed
in view of some decision of the Reference Court in respect of the same
village and same award as are involved in the present case. Therefore,
this appeal is rejected in so far as the appellants' prayer for further
enhancement in the compensation is concerned. However, the appellants
are entitled to get the benefit of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Sunder's case (supra). No order as to costs.
P.K. BHASIN,J
JANUARY 10, 2011/pg
