Union of India v. Balbir Singh Deceased Through LRs

1. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant in respect of the and situated in village Ghevra, covered under the notification dated LA.APP. 39512011 Page 1 of[3] 2011:DHC:14232 06.02.2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act') and the declaration dated 30.04.2003 issued under Section 6 of the Act, subject matter of Award No.6/2004-05 dated 26.06.2004.

2. At the outset, counsel for the appellant states that the present case is covered by the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench (Pradeep Nandrajog, J.) passed in a batch of matters, lead matter being LA.APP. 489/2008 entitled Chiranli Lal vs. UOI & Anr. decided on 02.06.2011. He hands over a copy of the aforesaid judgment, which is ( taken on the record..3. Counsel for the appellant states that by the aforesaid judgment, as against the enhanced compensation granted by the Reference Court of 19,18,311/- per acre, i.e., 72,570/- per bigha, the Single Judge has enhanced the compensation to 4,03,425/- per bigha, which comes to 19,36,440/- per acre. As a result, the appeals filed by the • landowners were allowed by enhancing the compensation payable to them to 4,03,425/- per bigha alongwith solatium and interest as per statute and as clarified in the case of Sunder vs. UOI reported as 93 (2001) DLT 569 alongwith proportionate costs, while the appeals preferred by the Union of India were dismissed. The operative paras in the case of Chiranji Lal (supra) are reproduced hereinbelow:- "17. The pleas by learned counsel for the appellants are rejected for the reason the Government of Delhi issues the notifications pertaining to the minimum rate it would pay and these rates apply to all agricultural lands in Delhi irrespective of the situation, potentiality etc. The appellants are not seeking the rate as offered by the Government and thus cannot say that discarding the rates, the percentage increase offered by the Government should bind the Government. As regards the second plea, we see no reasoning in the Division Bench judgment as is projected by learned counsel that the Division Bench found that in village Tikri Kalan the percentage increase in land price post 1996 come down to 10% per annum and not in village Ghewra. In fact the decision would show that the Division bench treated lands in the two villages at par. Thus, with respect to the price 2,35,815/- per bigha as of 11.6.1996 and giving 10% increase per annum the fair market value of the land of the appellants works out to 4,03,425/- per bigha and thus we dispose of the appeals enhancing the compensation payable to the appellants to 4,03,425/- per bigha. We further decree that the appellants would be entitled to solatium and interest as per statute and as clarified in the decision reported as 93(200 1) DLT 569 Sunder vs. UOI. Proportionate costs are also awarded. All pending applications stand disposed of in terms of the prayers made therein and cross objections, if any, filed by Union of India are dismissed."

4. Following the decision in the case of Chiranji Lal (supra), the present appeal filed by the Union of India is dismissed. HIMA KOHLI,J JULY 21 1 2011 rkb