Begram & Ors. v. UOI & 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) This appeal was filed by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 22nd February, 2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge whereby while granting enhancement in compensation to the appellants in respect of some of their lands in different khasras in village Dallupura which stood acquired by the Government declined to give same enhancement in respect of their land: khasra no. 253 (2-2) on the ground that in the statement under Section 19 of the Land Acquisition Act this Khasra No. 253 (2-2) had not been shown to be the land of the appellants. As far as the enhancement given to the appellants in respect of the land in other 2011:DHC:369 Khasras is concerned, though there was challenge to that also in the present appeal but during the hearing of the appeal it was given up since in the Government’s appeal the market value of the acquired land has already been reduced to ` 76,550/- per bigha and it was stated by the counsel for the appellants that they are now entitled to get compensation @ ` 76,550/- per bigha only.

2. The appellants, who appear to have assigned their right in khasra NO. 253 (2-2) and someone who had been brought on record, were claiming enhancement in compensation in respect of khasra no. 253 (2-2) also on the ground that they had already received the compensation which had been fixed in respect of their land by the Land Acquisition Collector and in support of their claim for enhancement they were relying upon payment certificates in that regard issued by the Land Acquisition Collector, Ex.A-1, A-1A & B. The learned Reference Court had, however, not accepted those certificates even though they had been exhibited in evidence without any objection from the side of the respondents on the ground that the same had not been proved in accordance with the law by not following any official from the revenue department and the Government had also not admitted those payment certificates during the pendency of the Reference proceedings, as is evident from a perusal of the impugned judgment of the Reference Court.

3. During the hearing of the present appeal it was asked by this Court from the learned counsel for Union of India whether he could inform the Court as to whom actually the compensation in respect of the disputed Khasra No. 253 (2-2) had been released if not to the appellants and whether the payment certificates being relied upon them were genuine or forged the learned counsel had submitted that he could verify these facts from the official records in the office of the Land Acquisition Collector concerned. Today during the course of hearing of the appeal learned counsel for Union of India produced one letter dated 14th January, 2011 addressed to him by Land Acquisition Collector (East) confirming that the payment in respect of the disputed Khasra No. 253 (2-2) had been actually paid to the two appellants Begram and Umrao in equal shares, as was being claimed by them. That letter has been taken on record today and its copy has been furnished to the counsel for the appellants.

4. In view of the aforesaid confirmation of the fact that compensation in respect of the disputed Khasra No. 253 (2-2) was made to the appellants learned counsel for Union of India very fairly submitted that now he had nothing more to say in opposition to the appellants’ appeal.

5. In view of the fact that the Union of India has now admitted the fact that appellants had received the compensation in respect of land in Khasra no. 253 (2-2) it becomes clear that the assignee of this land was entitled to get compensation in respect of the Khasra No. 253 (2-2). Even otherwise, I am in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the payment certificates having been admitted during the trial in evidence unopposed and exhibited the same could not have been rejected later on for the reason that the appellants should have examined someone from the revenue department particularly when none had appeared from the side of the Government to say that the impugned payment certificates were not genuine one.

6. This appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned judgment and decree of the Reference Court to the extent enhanced compensation in respect of Khasra No. 253 (2-2) has been denied to the appellant’s assignee stands set aside and it is held that the assignee shall be entitled to get compensation besides all other statutory benefits. As requested, it is, however, clarified that enhanced compensation shall be at the rate of ` 76,550/- per bigha which, as noticed already, already stands determined. P.K. BHASIN,J JANUARY 20, 2011