Om Prakash & Ors. v. UOI and Another

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: These appeals arise out of the judgments of the learned Reference Court disposing different References made by the Land Acquisition Collector under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act(„the Act‟ in short) in respect of the lands belonging to the appellants in village Amberhai which were acquired vide Award No.13/1991-92 pursuant to the notifications dated 10/7/1990 and 24/8/90 under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Act. Since same points were involved in all the appeals they were heard together and now are being disposed of also together by this common judgment.

2. Vide award no. 13/91-92 dated 10/3/92 market value of the land falling in block A was fixed @ Rs. 4.65 lakhs per acre i.e. Rs.96,975/- per bigha and @ Rs18,500/- per bigha in respect of land in block B. Dissatisfied with the said land rates fixed by the LAC, the landownersappellants got references made to the District Judge under section 18 of the Act. The Reference Court, however, rejected the claims of the appellants for further enhancement in compensation amount relying upon a decision of this Court in the case of “Tej Ram vs. UOI”, 111 (2004) DLT 465, which was also a case arising out of the same Award which is the subject matter of present appeals.

3. The appellants then approached this Court by filing the present appeals under Section 54 of the Act and have claimed fixation of the market value of their lands taking into consideration the land rate fixed in respect of the land in village Kakrola determined by this Court @ ` 1,20,500 per bigha vide judgment dated 23.10.2008 in a batch of appeals of village Kakrola, the lead case being “LAA No. 69/2007 “Ved Parkash Versus Union Of India”. Village Kakrola is claimed by the appellants to be adjoining, village Amberhai.

4. The learned Trial Court gave its findings in the impugned order dated 19.02.2005 which has been reproduced as:-

5. It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that this Court had observed in the case of “Ishwar Singh vs. UOI” (RFA NO. 43/87 decided on 02-04-2002) that villages Kakrola, Baprola, Palam and Amberhai are located adjacent to each other and so the learned Reference Court should have fixed the market value of the land which has been fixed in respect of village Kakrola by this Court in “Ved Prakash vs. UOI”, (RFA No. 69/2007 decided on 23-10-2008) at ` 1,20,500 per bigha for village Amberhai also, which is the village involved in these appeals. In support of this submission, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in “UOI vs. Bhagwan Singh and Ors.”, 47 (1982) DLT 205.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for Union of India relying upon the observations of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court made in para no. 9 of the judgment reported as “Kanwar Singh vs. UOI”, (1998) 8 SCC 136 submitted that just because two villages are adjoining to each other the same cannot be the decisive factor for adopting the market value of the land fixed in respect of one village for the other village also unless it is shown by the aggrieved land owners that situation and potentiality of the land in two different villages were the same, which, contended Mr. Poddar, in the present case the appellants had failed to establish.

7. As noticed already, the trial Court has observed that there is no satisfactory evidence adduced by the appellants herein in support of their claim for further enhancement in compensation. Learned counsel for the appellants could not point out any evidence adduced by the appellants to show that the land in village Kakrola and Ambarhai had the same potentiality. Therefore, the learned Reference Court was fully justified in accepting the market value of the land in village Ambarhai which this Court had accepted in Tej Ram‟s case(supra).

8. These appeals are accordingly dismissed.

9. Original judgment be kept in LA.APP. 472-476/2005 and its copy be kept in other files.