Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocate for UOI v. SANTOSH KUMAR & ORS

1. A perusal of the impugned decision of the Reference Court would reveal that inter se R-1 and the remaining respondents in the instant appeal, learned Reference Court has held that only R-1 would be entitled to the compensation and since UOI is aggrieved by the impugned order in so far it relates to the compensation assessed I hold that R-2 to R-14 are neither necessary nor proper parties.

2. A perusal of the impugned reference order would reveal that the compensation which has been enhanced in favour of R- 1 is as per the decision of the Division Bench of this Court which has attained finality. The compensation is in sum of?7,000/- per bigha which was determined by a Division Bench of this Court in RFA No.200/83 Bhoop Singh Vs. UOI pertaining to a notification LA.APP. 401/2011 page[1] of[2] 2011:DHC:13609 dated 24.10.1961 and the village being Badli.

3. The appeal filed by the Union of India has accordingly to be dismissed but a correction has to be made in favour of respondent No.l, which correction can be made even without any cross objections being filed for the reason the learned Reference Court has not granted benefit to respondent No.l which would be due to respondent No.l as per Sub-Section 3 of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Act 1967, for the reason the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in the instant case was notified more than 3 ^ years after the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued.

4. The appeal accordingly stands disposed of making a declaration as per para 3 above requiring a decree to be so prepared to the benefit of R-1. C.M. No.13204/2011(Stav) Dismissed as infructuous.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG,J. AUGUST 19,2011 mm