Begram & Ors. vs Uoi & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 351 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                               RFA 342 OF 2002

%                                      Date of Decision: 20th January, 2011


!    BEGRAM & ORS.                                           ....Appellants
                               Through:        Mr. Inder Singh, Advocate


                                   versus

$      UOI & ORS.                                         ...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)

This appeal was filed by the appellants against the judgment and

decree dated 22nd February, 2002 passed by the learned Additional District

Judge whereby while granting enhancement in compensation to the

appellants in respect of some of their lands in different khasras in village

Dallupura which stood acquired by the Government declined to give same

enhancement in respect of their land: khasra no. 253 (2-2) on the ground that

in the statement under Section 19 of the Land Acquisition Act this Khasra

No. 253 (2-2) had not been shown to be the land of the appellants. As far as

the enhancement given to the appellants in respect of the land in other

Khasras is concerned, though there was challenge to that also in the present

appeal but during the hearing of the appeal it was given up since in the

Government's appeal the market value of the acquired land has already been

reduced to ` 76,550/- per bigha and it was stated by the counsel for the

appellants that they are now entitled to get compensation @ ` 76,550/- per

bigha only.

2. The appellants, who appear to have assigned their right in khasra no.

253 (2-2) and someone who had been brought on record, were claiming

enhancement in compensation in respect of khasra no. 253 (2-2) also on the

ground that they had already received the compensation which had been

fixed in respect of their land by the Land Acquisition Collector and in

support of their claim for enhancement they were relying upon payment

certificates in that regard issued by the Land Acquisition Collector, Ex.A-1,

A-1A & B. The learned Reference Court had, however, not accepted those

certificates even though they had been exhibited in evidence without any

objection from the side of the respondents on the ground that the same had

not been proved in accordance with the law by not following any official

from the revenue department and the Government had also not admitted

those payment certificates during the pendency of the Reference

proceedings, as is evident from a perusal of the impugned judgment of the

Reference Court.

3. During the hearing of the present appeal it was asked by this Court

from the learned counsel for Union of India whether he could inform the

Court as to whom actually the compensation in respect of the disputed

Khasra No. 253 (2-2) had been released if not to the appellants and whether

the payment certificates being relied upon them were genuine or forged the

learned counsel had submitted that he could verify these facts from the

official records in the office of the Land Acquisition Collector concerned.

Today during the course of hearing of the appeal learned counsel for Union

of India produced one letter dated 14th January, 2011 addressed to him by

Land Acquisition Collector (East) confirming that the payment in respect of

the disputed Khasra No. 253 (2-2) had been actually paid to the two

appellants Begram and Umrao in equal shares, as was being claimed by

them. That letter has been taken on record today and its copy has been

furnished to the counsel for the appellants.

4. In view of the aforesaid confirmation of the fact that compensation in

respect of the disputed Khasra No. 253 (2-2) was made to the appellants

learned counsel for Union of India very fairly submitted that now he had

nothing more to say in opposition to the appellants' appeal.

5. In view of the fact that the Union of India has now admitted the fact

that appellants had received the compensation in respect of land in Khasra

no. 253 (2-2) it becomes clear that the assignee of this land was entitled to

get compensation in respect of the Khasra No. 253 (2-2). Even otherwise, I

am in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the

appellants that the payment certificates having been admitted during the trial

in evidence unopposed and exhibited the same could not have been rejected

later on for the reason that the appellants should have examined someone

from the revenue department particularly when none had appeared from the

side of the Government to say that the impugned payment certificates were

not genuine one.

6. This appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned judgment and

decree of the Reference Court to the extent enhanced compensation in

respect of Khasra No. 253 (2-2) has been denied to the appellant's assignee

stands set aside and it is held that the assignee shall be entitled to get

compensation besides all other statutory benefits. As requested, it is,

however, clarified that enhanced compensation shall be at the rate of `

76,550/- per bigha which, as noticed already, already stands determined.

P.K. BHASIN,J

JANUARY 20, 2011/pg