Full Text
Translation output
$-97 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
LA.APP. 935/2010
UNION OF INDIA Appellant
Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate
LA.APP. 935/2010
UNION OF INDIA Appellant
Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate
VERSUS
HARISH CHANDER GUPTA @HARISH CHAND GUPTA & ANR Respondents is
Through: Mr.Sumer Sethi, Advocate for DDA
Through: Mr.Sumer Sethi, Advocate for DDA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
15.07.2011 CM No.19178/2010 For the reasons stated in the application delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
LA.APP.No.935/2010 A two-fold issue arises for consideration. Firstly whether
• the respondent would be entitled to 8% share in the 52 bigha and 4 biswa land comprised in Khasra No.96/2/2/1 acquired in the revenue estate of village Tehkhand.
The second issue pertains to the assessment of the fair market value of land as of the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, which I find has been determined by the learned Reference Court at 40,000/- per big ha.
LA .A PP. 93512010 VAM 2011:DHC:14075 I' /3 The learned Reference Court has enhanced the compensation and determined the same at 40,000/- per bigha with reference to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported as 94 (2001) DLT 881 (DB) LaxmiBai Vs. UQI.
With reference to the share of the respondent the learned Reference Court has relied upon two evidences. First that the partnership firm M/s.Janta Housing Company was the recorded owner of the land having purchased the same under a sale deed. Mutation was effected in the name of the partnership firm. With reference to the income tax returns of the partnership firm it was determined that the respondent was a
2/25th partner in the firm and on this basis it was held that the respondent would be entitled to 8% of the compensation assessed.
As regards the fair market value of the land, since
' the same has been decided by the learned Reference Court following the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Laxm/
Ba/s case, which decision has attained finality, I find no scope to interfere as regards the compensation assessed.
As regard respondent's share in the acquired land, learned counsel for the appellant has not shown to me any evidence to destroy the findings of fact returned by the learned
Reference Court. Indeed, evidence would reveal that M/s.Janta
Housing Company had purchased 52 bigha and 4 biswa land comprised in Khasra No.96/2/2/1 in village Tehkhand pursuant to the sale deed dated 5.3.1966, proved through the testimony of
PW-2, an official from the office of the Sub-Registrar. Mutation of the lands purchased stands effected in the revenue record in favour of the partnership firm. The income tax returns of the partnership firm would reveal that the respondent stands shown as a partner with 2/25th% share in the profits of the firm and thus I conclude that the learned Reference Court has rightly opined that the respondent would be entitled to 8% of the enhanced compensation.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
No costs.
PRADEEP NAN DRAJOG, J.
JULY 15, 2011 mm n
15.07.2011 CM No.19178/2010 For the reasons stated in the application delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
LA.APP.No.935/2010 A two-fold issue arises for consideration. Firstly whether
• the respondent would be entitled to 8% share in the 52 bigha and 4 biswa land comprised in Khasra No.96/2/2/1 acquired in the revenue estate of village Tehkhand.
The second issue pertains to the assessment of the fair market value of land as of the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, which I find has been determined by the learned Reference Court at 40,000/- per big ha.
LA .A PP. 93512010 VAM 2011:DHC:14075 I' /3 The learned Reference Court has enhanced the compensation and determined the same at 40,000/- per bigha with reference to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported as 94 (2001) DLT 881 (DB) LaxmiBai Vs. UQI.
With reference to the share of the respondent the learned Reference Court has relied upon two evidences. First that the partnership firm M/s.Janta Housing Company was the recorded owner of the land having purchased the same under a sale deed. Mutation was effected in the name of the partnership firm. With reference to the income tax returns of the partnership firm it was determined that the respondent was a
2/25th partner in the firm and on this basis it was held that the respondent would be entitled to 8% of the compensation assessed.
As regards the fair market value of the land, since
' the same has been decided by the learned Reference Court following the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Laxm/
Ba/s case, which decision has attained finality, I find no scope to interfere as regards the compensation assessed.
As regard respondent's share in the acquired land, learned counsel for the appellant has not shown to me any evidence to destroy the findings of fact returned by the learned
Reference Court. Indeed, evidence would reveal that M/s.Janta
Housing Company had purchased 52 bigha and 4 biswa land comprised in Khasra No.96/2/2/1 in village Tehkhand pursuant to the sale deed dated 5.3.1966, proved through the testimony of
PW-2, an official from the office of the Sub-Registrar. Mutation of the lands purchased stands effected in the revenue record in favour of the partnership firm. The income tax returns of the partnership firm would reveal that the respondent stands shown as a partner with 2/25th% share in the profits of the firm and thus I conclude that the learned Reference Court has rightly opined that the respondent would be entitled to 8% of the enhanced compensation.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
No costs.
PRADEEP NAN DRAJOG, J.
JULY 15, 2011 mm n
JUDGMENT