Manmohan Sharma & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

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(ORAL) The appellants had challenged the decision of the Reference Court fixing the market value of their land acquired by the Land Acquisition Collector @ Rs. 150/- per square yard vide judgment dated 29th March,

1975.

2. The appellants’ land was meant for construction of a cinema. It was sought to be acquired by the Land Acquisition Collector vide notification dated 21st May, 1965 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and the notification under Section 6 was issued on 31st July, 1967. The Land Acquisition Collector had given his award on 30th March, 1968 awarding 2011:DHC:533 compensation @ Rs. 92/- per square yard. At the instance of the appellants a reference was made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the Reference Court while disposing of that reference had enhanced the market value of their land @ Rs.150/- per square yard. A perusal of the impugned judgment would show that the learned Additional District Judge had found considerable force in the submission made on behalf of the appellants herein that their land being earmarked for a cinema should fetch much more market value than that of residential plots and in that regard learned Reference Court had also made reference to the Government’s own circulars wherein it had been mentioned that market value of cinema plots was three times more than the residential plots. The learned Reference Court after taking into consideration the market value in respect of Palam Vila fixed the market value of the appellants’ land at Rs. 150/- per square yard after taking note of the fact that some part of the land was in possession of tenants as well as some encroachers and on that account some deductions were made.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent during the course of hearing of the appeal submitted that this Court had vide judgment dated 11th November, 1983 in RFA No. 35/1966 titled as Maya Devi vs. Union of India, determined the market value of the land in Sabzimandi, Roshanara Road @ Rs.120/- per square yard in the year 1961 and since the appellants’ land was also in the same area they could only expect the market value of their land @ Rs. 120/-per square yard with an increase @ 6% p.a. in view of the decision of this Court in Bedi Ram vs. Union of India reported as 2001 (6) AD (Delhi) 512. It was also contended that the learned Reference Court was fully justified in making some deductions in view of the occupation of some portions of the acquired land by tenants and encroachers. As far as the Government’s circular referred to in the impugned judgment to the effect that value of the land meant for cinema was to be three times that of residential plots is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent made a half-hearted submission that the Government’s circular cannot be relied upon for arriving at the market value in respect of the acquired land. However, a perusal of the Reference Court’s judgment shows that learned Reference Court had recognized that fact and the Government has not felt aggrieved by that. Counsel for the appellants had submitted that even though the appellants were claiming compensation at a much higher rate but this Court can take the market value as has been fixed by this Court in Maya Devi’s case and give 6 per cent increase in view of the fact that notification in that case was of the year 1965 while in the present case it was issued in the year 1967. As far as deduction on account of occupation of the acquired land by the tenants and encroachers is concerned learned counsel for the appellants submitted that at the most there could be a deduction of 30 per cent while counsel for the respondent had submitted that at least 50 per cent deduction has to be made.

4. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the Reference Court’s record I find that really there is no basis given by the learned Reference Court for arriving at market value of the land at Rs. 150/per square yard while accepting the argument on behalf of claimants that their land should get more value than a residential plot. The market value fixed by this Court in respect of the same area in which the appellants’ land was situated has been fixed by this Court @ Rs. 120 per square yard in the year 1961 and I am of the view that the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that value can be adopted for the present case can be accepted. Since counsel for the respondent has not disputed that appellants are entitled to 6 per cent increase because of the notification under Section 4 having been issued in the year 1967 the market value of the appellants’ land works out to Rs.454.47/- per square yard. As far as the reduction in the market value on account of occupation of the land by the tenants and encroachers is concerned, I am of the view that 50 per cent reduction would be appropriate and after that reduction is taken into account, the market value of the appellants’ land would work out to Rs.227/- per square yard and it stands determined accordingly. To that extent only this appeal would stand accepted. The appellants shall also be entitled to proportionate costs. P.K. BHASIN,J JANUARY 28, 2011