Delhi High Court
Shri Mohan Lal (Deceased) Through ... vs Union Of India & Others on 28 March, 2011
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ L.A. Appeal No. 617/2009
% 28th March, 2011
SHRI RAMESHWAR SINGH TANWAR & OTHERS ...... Appellants
Through: Mr. Ravi Sikri, Advocate with Mr.
Ayushya Kumar, Advocate.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate with
Mr. Ramesh Ray, Advocate for the
respondent No.1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal under
Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as
the 'said Act') is to the impugned judgment and decree dated
27.3.2009 answering the reference against the appellants and denying
the enhancement of compensation as also the statutory benefit of
interest under the said Act.
2. The facts of the case are that the land of the appellants
comprising of 4 bighas and 14 biswas situated in the Khasra No.2341,
of village Basaidarapur was proposed to be acquired by issuance of a
L.A. Appeal No.617/2009 Page 1 of 4
notification under Section 4 of the said Act on 13.11.1959.
Declaration under Section 6 was thereafter issued on 23.11.1963 and
the Award No.1717/1964 was thereafter passed on 29.5.1964. In
terms of the Award, appellant was granted compensation of Rs.2,500/-
per bigha besides other statutory benefits. The appellants being
dissatisfied sought reference under Section 18 of the said Act and
which resulted in the impugned judgment.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance
upon a judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court dated
15.4.1980 in RFA No.401/1971 titled as Khushi Ram & Others Vs.
Union of India and in which case the compensation @ Rs.14/- per sq.
yard was granted for a notification dated 24.4.1957 under Section 4 for
acquisition of lands in the same village for undeveloped lands and
compensation at Rs.17/- per sq. yard was granted for the developed
land. Learned counsel for the appellants says that the aforesaid rate of
Rs.14/- per sq. yard is liable to be enhanced by 6% per annum in view
of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bedi
Ram Vs. Union of India 2001 (93) DLT 150. The appellants also
pray for grant of interest which has been denied by the trial Court for
the period from 6.5.1965 to 9.9.2002. The counsel for the Union of
India has per contra argued that the land of the appellants was full of
pits and therefore the trial Court has rightly distinguished the case of
Khushi Ram (supra) which was cited before it.
L.A. Appeal No.617/2009 Page 2 of 4
4. A reading of the impugned judgment and the Award
passed by the Land Acquisition Collector shows that though there were
some pits on the land, however, it is not as if the land was completely
full of pits. Since there were some pits on the land consequently this
aspect will have to be borne in mind while determining the
compensation to be awarded. The issue is whether the case of Khushi
Ram (supra) can be distinguished on this ground.
5. In my opinion, the trial Court erred in distinguishing the
case of Khushi Ram (supra) and the argument, in this regard, on
behalf of the respondent No.1, is not correct that the compensation
should not be awarded @ Rs.14/- per sq. yard. The argument of Union
of India is not correct because in the case of Khushi Ram (supra)
itself land was put into two categories i.e. undeveloped land and
developed land. For the undeveloped land, compensation was granted
@ Rs.14/-, and for the developed land compensation was granted @
Rs.17/- per square yard. The undeveloped land would not be land
which is developed for a colony but it would basically mean undulating
land that is not properly and fully levelled. Surely, in undeveloped land
there would not be proper levelling and it is for this reason that the
compensation has been awarded at lower than the developed land
which would indicate a proper levelling of the subject land. I am,
therefore, of the opinion that undeveloped land will include land in
which there are certain pits and that there is therefore no valid reason
to distinguish the applicability of the judgment of Khushi Ram
L.A. Appeal No.617/2009 Page 3 of 4
(supra). Appellants would therefore be entitled to compensation @
Rs.14/- per sq. yard alongwith yearly increase of 6% per annum in
terms of the decision in the case of Bedi Ram (supra). On applying
the aforesaid appreciation of 6% per annum, compensation therefore
would be payable at Rs.15.84/- per square yard. On this amount,
appellants will also be entitled to solatium of 30%. Appellants will also
be entitled to interest on the solatium in view of the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Sunder Vs. Union of India 93 (2001)
DLT 596. Appellants will further also be entitled to interest @ 9% per
annum from the date of dispossession till the payment/deposit of
compensation for the first year and 15% per annum thereafter till
payment/deposit. I clarify that the appellants will not be entitled to
any interest for the period from 6.5.1965 to 9.9.2002 in view of the Full
Bench decision of this Court in the case of Chander Vs. Union of
India & Another 122 (2005) DLT 517 inasmuch as proceedings
under Sections 30/31 were stayed as per the statement of the present
appellants. In any case, this issue has already been held against the
appellants in terms of the judgment dated 17.11.2005 of the trial Court
in this very case and which judgment having not been challenged has
become final. Decree sheet be prepared. Trial Court record be sent
back.
MARCH 28, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne
