Through: Mr. Sanjay Pathak, Adv v. JAGAT SINGH TYAGI THR. LRs. & ANR

dated 02.04.2011 passed by the Reference Court in respect of land situated in Village
Holambi Kalan covered under Award No.22/1997-98 made on
. 30.3.1998 pursuant to notification issued under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') on 15.11.1996.
Counsel for the parties jointly state that the present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of 'Gajrai Singh Vs. Union of India & Anr.', reported as 2006
VI AD (Delhi) 13.
LA.APP. 47712011 .
2011:DHC:18673 Counsel for the appellant states that in the aforesaid judgment, the Division Bench had determined the fair market value of two sets of land as 9,76,121/- per acre for lands falling under category 'A' and
9,51,121/- per acre for lands falling under category 'B'.
Counsels for the respondents state that the judgment in the case of 'Gajraj Singh (Suira)' has attained finality. The operative paras of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced herein below:-

"34. It is not disputed before us that there is another error in the judgment of the reference court and the Collector that the claimants have not been awarded interest as in terms of the provision of the L.A. Act on the solatium as well as the benefit available to the claimants in terms of Section 23(1)(a) of the Act. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents fairly stated that the claimants would be entitled to the said benefit. However in the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not propose to interfere with the concurrent finding recorded by the reference court and the Collector in regard to grouping of lands. In the award, it was recorded that there is 'B 1 group land where there are gaddas and bhattas being run by the owners. No evidence was brought on record by any of the claimants to show that the said finding is incorrect. The claimants in whose land there are gaddas and bhattas are being run, have already earned enough from those lands and thus are bound to suffer certain disadvantage and

' cannot argue that their land should be treated identically to the agriculture lands which were bearing crops at the relevant time and had a higher level of water as well as earth. Thus we do not propose to interfere with the grouping of land into two different sections i.e. Group A and Group B. Because of lack of evidence by the claimants, we approve the order of the reference court maintaining marginal difference in awarding compensation to these two categories of lands in the same ratio.
LA APP. 47712011 .