Delhi High Court
Sh. Rajiv Gupta & Ors. vs Uoi & Anr. on 11 January, 2011
Author: P.K.Bhasin
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LA APP NO. 36 OF 2004
Date of Decision: 11th January, 2011
# SH. RAJIV GUPTA & ORS. ..... Appellant
! Through: Mr. D. V. Khatri, Advocate
Versus
$ UOI & ANR. ..... Respondents
^ Through: Mr. Ashish Tanwar,
Advocate 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)
This appeal was filed against the judgment and decree dated
18.8.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi enhancing
the compensation to be awarded to the appellants whose land in
village Sahibabad Daulatpur was acquired. The Land Acquisition
Collector had awarded compensation @ ` 96,875/- per bigha and
upon the reference being made under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act at the instance of the appellant herein the reference
Court enhanced the compensation to ` 1,51,000/- per bigha. The
appellants, however, was still not satisfied and so he preferred the
present appeal.
2. The only point urged by the learned counsel for the appellants
was that the Reference Court has awarded the compensation to the
appellants in terms of the Government's policy contained in Ex. P1
but that policy to the extent it permitted enhancement by 12% in
respect of the lands acquired vide notifications issued after
03.05.1990 is illegal and arbitrary since the same policy permitted
reduction to the extent of 15% in the market value of the land in
respect of the awards passed on the basis of notifications issued
prior to 03.05.1990 and so the Reference Court should have allowed
15% yearly increase instead of 12% since if reduction was to be to
the extent of 15% increase should also be to the extent of 15% and
not 12%.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 (Union of India)
submitted that this court cannot go into the question of legality of
the Government's policy contained in Ex. P1 relied upon by the
Reference Court in the present appeal and also that the appellant in
any case himself having got enhancement relying upon the said
policy is now estopped from impugning that policy decision of the
Government.
4. This Court is in full agreement with the submissions of the
learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. Before the Reference
Court the appellants had only relied upon Government's policy Ex.P-1
and the Court followed that policy decision and ordered
enhancement in the compensation payable to the appellant. As per
that policy the government had fixed the minimum price for the
agricultural lands in Delhi at ` 4.65 lacs per acre w.e.f. 27/4/90 and
further the said land rate was to be reduced by 15% yearly in cases
of acquisitions carried out pursuant to the notifications issued under
Section 4 before 3/5/90 and in cases of notifications issued after
3/5/90 there was to be increase by 12% yearly. The trial Court has
given the benefit of 12% escalation to the appellants as per the said
policy relied upon by them. If the appellants were aggrieved by the
policy decision of the Government permitting only 12% increase in
the market value of the lands acquired pursuant to the notifications
issued after 03.05.1990 they should have challenged that decision of
the Government in appropriate proceedings and in the present
appeal they cannot impugn that and particularly when it is not their
case that any other similarly placed land owner has been granted
benefit of increase of 15%.
5. This appeal therefore lacks merits and is hereby dismissed.
January 11, 2011 P.K. BHASIN,J
nk
