Narain Singh(Decd.)Thr.Lrs.& ... vs Union Of India & Another
2012 Latest Caselaw 3815 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                               Reserved on: May 29, 2012
                                             Pronounced on: July 02, 2012
+     RFA 593/2000

      NARAIN SINGH(DECD.)THR.LRS.& ORS       ..... Appellants
                   Through: Mr.Deepak Khosla, Advocate

                    versus


      UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER                ..... Respondents
                    Through: Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Advocate
                             for UOI
                             Mr.Paramhans, Advocate for
                             Mr.Arun Birbal, Advocate for
                             respondent - DDA

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                                ORDER

% 02.07.2012

1. This appeal pertains to the acquisition of the land in Village Mahipalpur, in pursuance to the Notification of 23rd January, 1965 issued under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

2. Vide impugned judgment of 6th July, 2000, the Reference Court had granted the compensation at the rate of `3,000/- per bigha while relying upon the Division Bench decision of this Court in RFA No. 164/1978, 'Pratap Singh Giani vs. Union of India', rendered on 23rd August, 1995 (Ex.AR-1).

3. Learned counsel for the appellant solely relies upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Hoshiar Singh vs. Union of India, 45(1991) DLT (SN) 20 (DB), to seek enhancement in compensation @ `14,340/- per bigha as it is stated that the decision in Hoshiar Singh (supra) had attained finality.

R.F.A.No.593/2000 Page 1

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent draws attention of this Court to paragraph no: 12 of the impugned judgment to point out that in respect of this very Notification of instant Village, the compensation has been assessed in Pratap Singh Giani (supra) at the rate of `3,000/- per bigha.

5. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the impugned judgment and the decisions cited, I find that in the later decision in Pratap Singh Giani (supra), the earlier decision in Hoshiar Singh (supra) has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court and while relying upon another Division Bench decision in Baljeet Singh & ors. vs. Union of India & Anr., 47 (1992) DLT 212, the compensation assessed in respect of the Notification and the Village in question is at the rate of `3,000 per bigha. Reference Court in the impugned judgment has already granted the compensation at the aforesaid rate. Thus, no case for further enhancement of the compensation in this appeal is made out. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed with no orders as to costs.

                                                         (SUNIL GAUR)
                                                            JUDGE
      JULY 02, 2012
      pkb




R.F.A.No.593/2000                                                         Page 2