Delhi High Court
Manmohan Sharma & Anr. vs Uoi & Ors. on 28 January, 2011
Author: P.K.Bhasin
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA 285 OF 1975
% Date of Decision: 28th January, 2011
! MANMOHAN SHARMA & ANR. ....Appellants
Through: Mr.S.K. Rout, Mr. S.K. Sharma
& Mr. B.K. Rout, Advocates
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)
The appellants had challenged the decision of the Reference Court
fixing the market value of their land acquired by the Land Acquisition
Collector @ Rs. 150/- per square yard vide judgment dated 29th March,
1975.
2. The appellants' land was meant for construction of a cinema. It was
sought to be acquired by the Land Acquisition Collector vide notification
dated 21st May, 1965 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and the
notification under Section 6 was issued on 31st July, 1967. The Land
Acquisition Collector had given his award on 30th March, 1968 awarding
compensation @ Rs. 92/- per square yard. At the instance of the appellants a
reference was made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the
Reference Court while disposing of that reference had enhanced the market
value of their land @ Rs.150/- per square yard. A perusal of the impugned
judgment would show that the learned Additional District Judge had found
considerable force in the submission made on behalf of the appellants herein
that their land being earmarked for a cinema should fetch much more market
value than that of residential plots and in that regard learned Reference
Court had also made reference to the Government's own circulars wherein it
had been mentioned that market value of cinema plots was three times more
than the residential plots. The learned Reference Court after taking into
consideration the market value in respect of Palam Vila fixed the market
value of the appellants' land at Rs. 150/- per square yard after taking note of
the fact that some part of the land was in possession of tenants as well as
some encroachers and on that account some deductions were made.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent during the course of hearing of the
appeal submitted that this Court had vide judgment dated 11th November,
1983 in RFA No. 35/1966 titled as Maya Devi vs. Union of India,
determined the market value of the land in Sabzimandi, Roshanara Road @
Rs.120/- per square yard in the year 1961 and since the appellants' land was
also in the same area they could only expect the market value of their land
@ Rs. 120/-per square yard with an increase @ 6% p.a. in view of the
decision of this Court in Bedi Ram vs. Union of India reported as 2001 (6)
AD (Delhi) 512. It was also contended that the learned Reference Court
was fully justified in making some deductions in view of the occupation of
some portions of the acquired land by tenants and encroachers. As far as the
Government's circular referred to in the impugned judgment to the effect
that value of the land meant for cinema was to be three times that of
residential plots is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent made a
half-hearted submission that the Government's circular cannot be relied
upon for arriving at the market value in respect of the acquired land.
However, a perusal of the Reference Court's judgment shows that learned
Reference Court had recognized that fact and the Government has not felt
aggrieved by that. Counsel for the appellants had submitted that even
though the appellants were claiming compensation at a much higher rate but
this Court can take the market value as has been fixed by this Court in Maya
Devi's case and give 6 per cent increase in view of the fact that notification
in that case was of the year 1965 while in the present case it was issued in
the year 1967. As far as deduction on account of occupation of the acquired
land by the tenants and encroachers is concerned learned counsel for the
appellants submitted that at the most there could be a deduction of 30 per
cent while counsel for the respondent had submitted that at least 50 per cent
deduction has to be made.
4. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the
Reference Court's record I find that really there is no basis given by the
learned Reference Court for arriving at market value of the land at Rs. 150/-
per square yard while accepting the argument on behalf of claimants that
their land should get more value than a residential plot. The market value
fixed by this Court in respect of the same area in which the appellants' land
was situated has been fixed by this Court @ Rs. 120 per square yard in the
year 1961 and I am of the view that the submission of the learned counsel
for the appellants that value can be adopted for the present case can be
accepted. Since counsel for the respondent has not disputed that appellants
are entitled to 6 per cent increase because of the notification under Section 4
having been issued in the year 1967 the market value of the appellants' land
works out to Rs.454.47/- per square yard. As far as the reduction in the
market value on account of occupation of the land by the tenants and
encroachers is concerned, I am of the view that 50 per cent reduction would
be appropriate and after that reduction is taken into account, the market
value of the appellants' land would work out to Rs.227/- per square yard and
it stands determined accordingly. To that extent only this appeal would
stand accepted. The appellants shall also be entitled to proportionate costs.
P.K. BHASIN,J
JANUARY 28, 2011/nk
