Suraj Bhan v. Union of India & Ors.

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 reported in the digest or not? Yes S.L. BHAYANA, J The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the award/order passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi in LAC No.35/2004 dated 20.7.2006.

2. The brief facts of the present case are that the land of the appellant situated at village Tikri Kalan was acquired vide award No.18/1997-98 by the Government. The Government acquired total land measuring 140 bighas 2 biswa 12 biswani for public purpose for construction of 40 metre wide road for PVC market under the planned development of Delhi at public expense. The Government had issued a notification under Section 4 of the Act on 16.11.1995. Since there was urgency of the scheme, the provisions of Section 17(1) of the Act were made applicable and the Government issued a declaration under 2009:DHC:5518 of the Act, the Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the land @ Rs.1,68,000/- per bigha. Thereafter, a reference was made in respect of award no.2/97-98 village Tikri Kalan to the learned ADJ. The learned ADJ disposed of the reference vide impugned judgment dated 20.7.2006 fixing the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.1,73,040/- per bigha.

3. The learned ADJ awarded the compensation of Rs.1,73,040 per bigha to the petitioners. The petitioners have also been awarded to 30% solatium under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act on the market value of land fixed by the court. The petitioners have been further entitled to additional amount of 12% on the market value fixed in this case, under Section 23-1(A) of the Act from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act to the date of dispossession or award whichever is earlier. The petitioners have been further entitled to interest on the market value of the land fixed by this Court under Section 28 of the Act at 9% per annum from the date of award or dispossession whichever is earlier till the expiry of one year and thereafter at 15% per annum till payment.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the appellant is not entitled to claim any interest for 868 days delay in filing the appeal and also the costs from the respondents. On 22.10.2009, the application for condonation of 868 days delay in filing the appeal was allowed, subject to this condition that the appellant shall not get any interest for this period and also the costs. Learned counsel for the appellant had also made a statement that the appellant shall not claim any interest for this period of 868 days and also the costs if the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Bench of this Court in LA.APP. No. 193/2006 titled “Pratap Singh (dead) through LRs vs. Union of India & Ors.”, The Division Bench has enhanced the market value of the land for Block-A to Rs.2,15,160/- per bigha and for Block-B to Rs.1,73,500/- per bigha accordingly.

6. Since the present case is covered by the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of this Court and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal is partly allowed. The appellant shall be entitled to revised market value of the land @ Rs.2,15,160/per bigha instead of Rs.1,73,040/- per bigha along with the statutory benefits allowed by the learned ADJ. It is, however, clarified that the appellant shall not get interest for 868 days and also the costs of the appeal and the suit.

7. With these observations, the appeal stands disposed of. S.L.BHAYANA, J. December 18, 2009