Charan Singh v. U.O.I.

1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be Yes reported in the Digest? HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL)

1. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant against an order dated 29.1.1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge on a reference petition filed by him, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short ‘the Act’).

2. The subject matter of the present appeal is land situated in village Khichripur, Delhi in respect of which a notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 7.7.1979, followed by a notification under Section 6 of 2010:DHC:1263 the Act, dated 12.11.1979. The Land Acquisition Collector made an award No.97/83-84 dated 29.2.1984, and fixed the compensation in respect of the acquired land, subject matter of the appeal, @ Rs.2500/- per bigha.

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the appellant filed a reference petition before the learned Additional District Judge, under Section 18 of the Act. By the impugned judgment, the learned Additional District Judge held that the appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation for the land in question, @ Rs.26,880/- per bigha, along with other statutory benefits.

4. Counsel for the appellant states that facts of the present case are identical to those of the case registered as RFA No.641/1993 entitled Rattan Lal Aggarwal vs. UOI, decided by a Single Judge of this Court on 16.12.2009, wherein the same award, pertaining to the same village was a subject matter of consideration. In the said case, the learned Single Judge allowed the appeal and held that the appellant therein was entitled to increased compensation for the acquired land, @ Rs.46,444/- per bigha.

5. The aforesaid decision was based on a judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Bedi Ram vs. UOI & Ors., reported as 93(2001) DLT 150, decided on 23.3.2001, wherein taking into consideration the rising trend in escalation of prices of land in the adjoining village Kondli, subject matter of consideration in the aforesaid case, the market value of the land was fixed @ Rs.22,850/- in respect of the land acquired under the notification dated 8.2.1973, with an appreciation @ 12% p.a. over this rate for the land acquired vide a notification dated 19.8.1976, which came to Rs.34,150/- per bigha. Taking into consideration the rates of compensation fixed for the land acquired by notifications issued in the years 1973 and 1976 respectively, in the case of Ratan Lal Aggarwal (supra), the learned Single Judge held that by adopting the same formula of giving appreciation at the rate of 12% p.a. over the compensation awarded for the notification dated 19.8.1976 @ Rs.34,150/-, the maximum compensation payable to the appellant with reference to the notification dated 7.7.1979 would be @ Rs.46,444/- per bigha.

6. On inquiry, counsel for the respondent/UOI states that the judgment dated 16.12.2009 in the case of Rattan Lal Aggarwal (supra) has not yet been challenged by preferring an appeal before the Supreme Court.

7. Considering the fact that the subject matter of the present appeal is the same award and the land in question is covered by the same notification, no different view can be taken from that already taken in the case of Rattan Lal Aggarwal (supra). Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed on the same lines. The appellant is held entitled to grant of compensation @ Rs.46,444/- per bigha for the land in question along with statutory benefits in accordance with law, which are as under: (a) 12 % additional amount on the above market value of land under section 23 (1A) of the Act. (b) 30% solatium on the above market value of land under section 23 (2) of the Act.

(c) Interest under section 28 of the Act at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of dispossession for the first year and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till the date of the tender of compensation, which includes the benefit granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunder Vs. Union of India reported as 2001 (93) DLT 569.

8. The present appeal is allowed with proportionate costs. HIMA KOHLI,J MARCH 03, 2010 sk