Mir Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.

4 Through:

VERSUS

*V UOI & ANR. Through + LA.APP.473/2009 Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate with Mr.Ra mesh Ray and Mr.Ashish RAMPHAL RATHI Appellant Through:

VERSUS

UOl & ANR. Through Mr.Ramesh Ray and Mr.Ashish 2011:DHC:12739 4 S., + LA.APP.474/2009 RISALO Appellant Through: UOl & ANR. Through: + LA.APP.836/2010

VERSUS

SIDDHARTH BANSIWAL MINOR Sf0 SHYAM LAL BANSIWAL Appellant Through:

VERSUS

J UOI & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate with % ORDER 02.06.2011 The instant appeals pertain to lands situated in the revenue estate of village Ghevra, and the notification under * Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 with which I am concerned was issued on 12.8.1997. The Reference Court has assessed the compensation @ 2,63,326I- per acre besides other statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894. Page2of[4] Deciding a batch of appeals lead matter being LA.APP No.489/2008 Chiranli La! Vs. UQI & Anr. today itself, with reference to a decision dated 19.12.2008 passed by a Division Bench deciding LA.APP.No.193/2006 Pratay 5/nc7h (through LRs) Vs. UOI & Ors.. The argument advanced in the instant appeals that for the period post 1996, in village Ghevra percentage increase of land price has to be 12% and not 10% has been negated and thus I do not reiterate the reasons for my so • holding as in said decisions rendered today I have held that the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Pratap Singh's case (supra) requires it to be held that in village Ghevra prices of land rose by 12% per annum till the year 1996 and thereafter @ 10% per annum. Impugned decisions would reveal that adopting different process of reasoning compensations have been enhanced by different sums and none in one reference. In Pratap SinQh's case (supra) compensation assessed pertaining to a notification dated 11.6.1996 is 2,35,815/- per • bigha. As. I have interpreted, the decision in Pratap Singh's case (supra) requires the same to be enhanced by 10% per annum and since the notification with which I am concerned is dated 12.8.1997, the enhanced compensation as per said date would work out to 2,63,372/- per bigha for land in Block-A and for land comprised in Block-B the figure would be 2,12,256/- per bigha and thus I dispose of the appeals decreeing the claim of the appellants to be paid compensation accordingly depending upon whether their land is in Block-A or Block-B. Page 3of[4] Cross-Objections, if any, in the appeals would stand disposed of accordingly requiring the Executing Court to execute the decree with reference to whether the land of the appellants is comprised in Block-A or Block-B and needless to state decree in favour of any appellant as per the decision of the Reference Court where the amount works out to more than as determined by(ie)hereinabove would stand modified accordingly. It is further decreed that where compensation payable stands enhanced the appellants thereof would be entitled to statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and as per the decision of the Supreme Court reported as 93 (2001) DLT 569 Sunder Vs. Un/on of/nd/a. Proportionate costs awarded.

PRADEEP NAN DRAJOG, J. June 2, 2011 dk I Page4of[4]