Full Text
LA.APP. 886/2006
RENU GUPTA Appellant
ThroughiMr.Deepak KhosIa, Advocate with Ms.Sunita Jain, Advocate
UOI AND ANR.
Tlirough:
Mr.Ashish Tanwar, Advocate for UOI Ms.Shobhna Takiar, Advocate for DDA
NARESH MITTAL & ORS. Appellants
Through: Mr.Mahipal Singh, Advocate 1.
UOI AND ANR.
Through:
Mr.Ashish Tanwar, Advocate for UOI Ms.Shobhna Takiar, Advocate for DDA
02.06.2011 Instant appeals pertain to fixation of fair nnarket value of
Page 1 of3 2011:DHC:12710 agricultural lands in the revenue estate of village Tikri Kalan as of 17.2.1998; the date when notification under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act 1894 was issued.
ORDER
2. Learned counsel for the parties fairly concedes that the entire material before the Court to determine the compensation is the decision dated 19.12.2008 disposing of a batch of Land Acquisition Appeals, lead matter being LA.APP.No.193/2006 Partao Singh through LRs Vs. Union ofIndia & Ors.
3. The said decision pertained to fixation of fair compensation of lands in village Tikri Kalan.
4. I note that various notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act were considered in the decision and the nearest in point of time would be the notification dated 11.6.1996, in respect whereof, for lands comprised in Block-A compensation assessed was ^2,35,815/- per bigha and for land comprised in Block-B, compensation assessed was ?1,90,155/per bigha.
5. It be noted that the Division Bench had held that percentage increase in price of land till the year 1995 was 12% and thereafter 10%. In other words, between the years 1995- 1996 increase in price assessed was 10% and this I take to be the increase between 1996-1998 as well.
6. If fair market value of Block-A land was ^2,35,815/- as of 11.6.1996, applying 10% increase, as of 17.2.1998 the fair compensation would come to ?2,75,612/-. This would be for land in Block-A. For land in Block-B, commencing from the base figure of ?1,90,516/- and granting 10% increase per annum, the fair compensation would be ^2,22,248/-. Page 2 of[3] #
7. The appeals accordingly stand disposed of enhancing the connpensation to ^2,75,612/- for Block-A land and ^2,22,248/- for Block-B land and needless to state appellants would be entitled to all statutory benefits in terms of law laid down in 93 (2001) DLT 569 Sunder Vs. Union ofIndia.
8. I find that there is an issue of the claim of the appellant that possession of the subject land was taken over before the Award was pronounced and thus, it is further decreed that the appellants would be entitled to such amount as would be payable under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act for the period commencing from date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act till date possession of land was taken over and if the same is prior to the Award in said circumstance the appellants would be entitled to benefit under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act in addition.
9. Proportionate costs are also awarded. JUNE 02. 2011 rk PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. Page 3 of[3]