Partap Singh & Ors. vs Uoi & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 353 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                               RFA 343 OF 2002

%                                      Date of Decision: 20th January, 2011


!    PARTAP SINGH & 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 their lands in some khasras in village Dallupura

which stood acquired by the Government declined to give similar

enhancement in respect of land in khasra no. 360 belonging to appellant no.

4 Jai Chand on the ground that in the statement under Section 19 of the Land

Acquisition Act Khasra No. 360 (3-12) had not been shown to be the land of

the appellant Jai Chand. As far as the enhancement given to the appellants in

respect of the land in other Khasras is concerned, though in the appeal it was

also challenged but during the course of the hearing it was given up since

this Court has fixed the market value of the lands in question @ Rs. 76,550/-

per bigha in the appeal filed by the respondent - UOI against the same

judgment of the trial Court.

2. The appellant Jai Chand was claiming enhancement in compensation

in respect of the land in khasra no. 360 also on the ground that he had

already received the compensation which had been fixed by the Land

Acquisition Collector and in support of that claim for enhancement he was

relying upon payment certificate in that regard issued by the Land

Acquisition Collector. The learned Reference Court had, however, not

accepted that certificate even though it had been exhibited as Ex. P-5 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

calling any official from the revenue department and the government had

also not admitted that payment certificate during the pendency of the

Reference proceedings.

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. 360 (3-12) had been released if not to the appellant and whether

the payment certificate being relied upon by him was 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 a letter dated 14th January, 2011 addressed to him by Land

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

disputed Khasra No. 360 (3-12) had been paid to the appellant Jai Chand, as

was being claimed by him. The photocopy of that letter was taken on record

today (original has been taken on record in RFA 342 of 2002 in which case

also similar controversy had arisen) and its copy was furnished to the

counsel for the appellants also.

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

respect of the disputed Khasra No. 360 (3-12) was made to the appellant Jai

Chand 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 admitted the fact that it

was appellant Jai Chand who had received the compensation in respect of

the land in Khasra no. 360(3-12) Jai Chand is entitled to get compensation in

respect of the Khasra No. 360 (3-12) also. Even otherwise, I am in

agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that

the payment certificate having been admitted and exhibited during the

evidence unopposed the same could not have been rejected later on by the

trial Court for the reason that the appellant 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 certificate in

question was 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. 360 (3-12) has been denied to appellant Jai Chand and

he is held entitled to the compensation in respect of this khasra besides all

other statutory benefits. As requested, it is, however, clarified that enhanced

compensation shall now be at the rate of ` 76,550/- per bigha which already

stands determined by this Court in the Government's appeal (being RFA No.

927 of 2003 titled as "Union of India Vs. Pratap Singh & Ors." decided on

1st December, 2010) and not Rs. 345/- per sq. yd. as fixed by the Reference

Court.

P.K. BHASIN,J

JANUARY 20, 2011/pg