Union of India v. Sheo Nath

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: This appeal filed by the Union of India is directed against the judgment of the Reference Court whereby the compensation in respect of the acquired land of the respondents’ predecessors-in-interest in village Wazirabad was enhanced to ` 45,000 per bigha from ` 4600 per bigha awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector.

2. The learned Reference Court while deciding the Reference under Section 18 made by the Land Acquisition Collector at the instance of the 2011:DHC:4065 predecessors-in-interest of the respondents relied upon a judgment in the case of “Nand Ram vs. UOI” rendered by another Reference Court on 30/08/88(Ex. A-1) in respect of village Wazirabad arising out of acquisition of some land pursuant to the notification issued on 17th November, 1980 which was subsequent to the issuance of the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in the present case which were issued on the same date i.e. on 1st November,

1978. In the afore-said judgment relied upon by the Reference Court while deciding the Reference arising out of the acquisition proceedings pursuant to the notification dated 17th November, 1980 the Court had fixed the market value of the acquired land in Wazirabad at ` 20,000 per bigha. In the present case the Reference Court has quoted the following observations from that judgment dated 30/08/88 in the impugned judgment:

3. The learned Reference Court had noted in the impugned judgment that the market value of land in village Dhirpur acquired pursuant to a notification which was also issued on 1st November, 1978, on which date notifications for village Wazirabad were also issued, had been determined at ` 26,000 per bigha by the Reference Court. The land owners of village Dhirpur had approached this Court for further enhancement in compensation in respect of their acquired lands and this Court in RFA NO. 424/1986 decided on 20th July, 1993 had enhanced the market value of the land to ` 50,000 per bigha. This Court had fixed the same market value in respect of the land in village Dhirpur which was acquired pursuant to the notification issued on 15th February, 1979 also. The learned Reference Court in the present case accordingly enhanced the market value of the land in respect of village in Wazirabad to ` 45,000 per bigha taking into consideration the enhancement given by this Court in respect of the lands in village Dhirpur. This is what was observed by the Reference Court in para no. 18 of the impugned judgment:

4. Feeling aggrieved by the enhancement in compensation made by the Reference Court, the Union of India filed the present appeal. It was contended by Sh. Sanjay Poddar, learned counsel for the appellant that the Reference Court was not justified in relying upon the market value of the lands fixed in respect of some other village (Dhirpur) when the Government had placed on record the sale deeds of village Wazirabad itself which were unjustifiably rejected by the Reference Court. Mr. Poddar cited one judgment of a Division Bench of this Court rendered in a batch of appeals against the decision of the Reference Court in respect of village Sahibabad Daulat Pur, out of which the lead case was Laxmi Narain Bansal vs. Union of India, RFA No. 677/94 decided on 7th February, 2003. In that judgment it had been held by the Division Bench that parity in compensation cannot be claimed merely on the ground that two villages are adjacent to each other but such parity can always be claimed in case there is material brought on record or circumstances available to show that the lands were similarly situated as regards topography, location and advantages available.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Deepak Khosla, learned counsel for the respondents argued that there was no illegality committed by the Reference Court in giving enhancement to the respondents taking into consideration the fact that initially market value of the land in village Wazirabad was fixed by the Reference Court relying upon the valuation fixed in respect of village Dhirpur and when this Court enhanced the market value of the land in village Dhirpur the Reference Court was fully justified in giving proportionate increase in the market value in respect of village Wazirabad also taking note of the fact that Wazirabad village was less developed than Dhirpur village.

6. I have gone through the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in “Gajender Singh Vs. Union of India” (RFA No. 424/86) decided on 20th July, 1992 whereby the market value of the land in village Dhirpur was fixed at ` 50,000 per bigha and which judgment was relied upon by the learned Reference Court in the present case while enhancing the market value of the respondents’ land in village Wazirabad to ` 45,000 per bigha. A perusal of this judgment shows that the reason given by the Division Bench for enhancing the market value of the land in village Dhirpur was that that village was near the main Mall Road(Kingsway Camp crossing) and it was also adjoining village Dhaka which, in turn, was adjoining to Model Town, a developed colony. Therefore, this Court had enhanced the market value of the land in village Dhirpur on the basis of material available in that case. No such material was available in the present case which could justify similar enhancement in the market value of the land in village Wazirabad and simply relying upon the afore-said decision in Gajender Singh’s case, learned Reference Court was not justified in enhancing the market value of respondents’ land to ` 45,000 per bigha.

7. This appeal accordingly succeeds and the impugned judgment of Reference Court is set aside. P.K. BHASIN,J August 10, 2011 pg/sh