Jeet Ram v. UOI & Ors.

0 U.O.I & ORS......Respondents Advocate for UOI. Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate for R-2. + LA.APP. 115/2007 POONAM GUPTA Through: Appellant Mr.Rakesh Khannä, Sr.Advocate with Mr.V.K.Singh, Advocbte. versus n U.O.l & ORS......Responç le nts AdvocateforUOl. Mr.M.K.Singh, Advocate for DDA Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate for R-3. I RFA No.663/02, 225/02, 112/07, 114/07 & 115/07 ~ 5> CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG ORDER % 12.08.2011 Pertaining to a notification dated 19th March 1993 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisiton Act 1894, for agricultural lands in village Narela, which are the subject matter 'in the above captioned appeals, the fair market value determined by • the learned Reference Court in the References which are the subject matter of LA.APP.No.112/2007, LA.APP.No.114/2007 and LA.APP.N.115/2007, for Category 'A' lands is 74.65 lakhs per acre and for Category 'B' lands 3.45 lakhs per acre. As against that, the learned Reference Court which decided the References which are subject matter of challenge in RFA No.225/2002 and RFA No.663/2002, determined fair market value for category 'A' lands at 1,30,523/- per bigha which equals to 6,27,600/- per acre. For the same notification, pertaining to an adjoining village i.e. Singhola, in the judgment reported as 2004 (4) AD (Delhi) 20 Ram Chander V. Un/on of/nd/a for Category 'A' land, the fair market value assessed is 1,30,523/- per bigha which comes to 6,27,600/- per acre. I may note that land in village Singhola did not have any depressions or pits and thus lands in said village were not categorized into 2 categories as has been done for the agricultural lands in village Narela. In said village level land has been put in category 'A' and those lands which had depressions RFA No.663/02, 225/02, 112/07, 114/07 & 115/07 Page 3 of. 6 or pits or where earth was removed have been classified in category Thus, there is no scope to enhance the compensation as regards RFA No.225/2002 and RFA No.663/2002 for the reason the appellants therein have been awarded compersation @6,27,600/- per acre i.e. 1,30,523/- per bigha which is the same as was awarded by the Division Bench in Ram Chander's case (supra). However, since the learned Reference Court has not directed that on the enhanced compensation benefit'of the judgment reported as 93 (2001) DLT 569 Sunder vs. UOI wOuld be given, the said 2 appeals stand disposed of maintaining the compensation awarded but decreeing that on the enhanced compensation the appellants would be entitled to the benefit of the judgment reported as 93 (2001) DLT 569 Sunder vs. UQI. No order as to costs in the said appeals. As regards the other 3 appeals, it be noted that the subject lands were having pits and depressions or earth was removed and were placed in category 'B'. The learned Reference Court, as noted in para 1 above assessed fair market value for category 'A' lands at 4.65 lakhs per acre and holding that Z[1].20 lakhs per acre would be required to level the lands, decreased the price by said sum and held that for category 'B' lands the fair market value would be Z[3].45 lakhs per acre. The decision of the Reference Court was set aside by the Division Bench vide judgment and order dated 10.3.2005 and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication for the reason the appellants had led no evidence and the Division Bench remanded the matter permitting the appellants to lead evidence, but directed that if compensation was enhanced, the appellants would not be entitled to interest on the enhnced compensation. The reason was obvious. The 3 appellants had been negligent. The RFAs are being RFA Nos.76/2001, 92/2001 and 93/2001. Surprisingly, even at the remanded stage the 3 appellants did not point out to the Reference Court the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Ram Chander's case (supra), which was reported in the year 2004. Unfortunately for them,, even at the remanded stage they landed up with the same decision as was pronounced earliçr. Since the issue of fair market value of category 'A', lands has attained finality, it has to be held that with referenceto said market value, fair market value oLcategory 'B' land hato be fixed. The question would be, what sum needs to be depre1sed. Neither have the appellants led any evidence to show what money would be spent on leveling the lands and neither has the department led any. The reasoning of the learned Reference Court that Z[1].20 lakhs would be. required per acre is in the nature of an opinion of the learned Judge.

1. I have been noticing that in various awards t hei Land Acquisition Collector has been depressing the value by 10o and I do the same. Thus, for category 'B' lands the fair market value would be 6,27,600/- less 10% i.e. 5,64,840/- per acre. RFA No.663/02, 225/02, 112/07, 114/07 & 115/07 Page 5of[6] LA.APP.No.112/2007, LA.APP.No.114/2007 and LA.APP. No.115/2007 stand disposed of decreeing that the appellants shall be paid compensation for the acquired lands @5,64,840/per acre with statutory benefits as per Land Acquisition Act 1894 but not interest on the enhanced compensation for this was the mandate when the earlier appeals filed by them were remanded; other statutory benefits as per law declared by the Supreme Court in the judgment reported as 93 (2001) DIT 569 S Sunder vs. UQI would be granted. I decline proportionate costs for the reason the said appellants have been negligent and had they brought to the notice of the learned Reference Court the decision in Ram Chander's case (supra) and the decisions of the learned Additional District Judge in leet Ram's case and Meer S/ngh's case, there would have been no need for the jnstant appeals to be filed. To summarize, RFA No.225/2002 and RFA No.663/2002 stand disposed of as per para 4 above and LA.APP.No.112/2007, LA.APP.No.114/2007 and LA.APP.No.115/2007 stand disposed of o[1] as per para 14 above.

PRADEEP NAN DRAJOG, J. AUGUST 12, 2011 dk