Jeet Ram v. UOI

4. 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 compensation @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. UO/ 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. UOI. 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 Z[4].65 lakhs per acre and holding that 71.20 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 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 enhanced compensation. The reason was obvious. The 3 appellants had been negligent. The RFA[5] are being RFA Nos.76/2001, 92/2001 and 93/2001. Surprisingly, even at the remanded stage the 3 • appellants did not point out tQ 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 earlier. Since the issue of fair market value of category 'A' lands has attained finality, it has to be held that with reference to said market value, fair market value of category 'B' land has to be fixed. The question would be, what sum needs to be depressed. O 12. 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.

13. I have been noticing that in various awards the Land Acquisition Collector has been depressing the value by 10% 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. 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) DLT 569 Sunder vs. UO/ 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 Sfngh's case, there would have been no need for the instant 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 as per para 14 above. --r-lr~~d PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. AUGUST 12, 2011 dk