Through Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate v. HARI SINGH THRU L.R’S & ANR

1. Whether the 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 REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL) C.M. No.15230/2007 This is an application by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 3A and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned. The application is disposed of. C.M. Nos.5583/2009 & 5584/2009 These are two applications; one for bringing on record the legal representatives of respondent No.1(ii), namely, Shri Raj Kumar Goyal who is stated to have died on August 16, 2008 and, the other for condonation of delay in filing the application. 2009:DHC:2848 Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection if the applications are allowed. Accordingly, the delay in filing the application for bringing on record the legal representatives of Shri Raj Kumar Goyal is condoned and consequently, his legal representatives, whose names are given in paragraph 2 of the application being C.M. No.5583 of 2009 are brought on record. The amended memo of parties is taken on record. Both the applications are disposed of. L.A. App. No.339/2007 This appeal has been preferred by Union of India against the judgment of the reference Court dated July 27, 2006 whereby the land-owners have been held entitled to compensation at Rs.14,340/per bigha for their land situated within the revenue estate of Village Mahipalpur, Delhi acquired vide notification dated January 23, 1965 regarding which the Land Acquisition Collector had made award on April 29, 1974. The reference Court has also held the respondents entitled to a sum of Rs. 37,221.17P for superstructure on the acquired land and to an additional sum under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act @ 12% per annum from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, till the date of the award or dispossession, whichever is earlier. The reference Court has based its decision on a judgment of Division Bench of this Court dated July 17, 1991 passed in RFA No.122 of 1975 titled Hoshiar Singh Versus Union of India. It is not disputed that the said judgment pertains to the same notification and to the same village as in the present appeal. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in the appeal insofar as the award of compensation at Rs.14,340/- per bigha is concerned. As regards the amount of Rs.37,221.17P which has been awarded for superstructure, I have perused the judgment and the evidence on which the reference Court has relied upon and I find no infirmity in the same. The only other point on which the appeal has been preferred is with regard to the grant of additional amount under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act @ 12% per annum on the market value of the land from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act till the date of the award or dispossession whichever is earlier. The amending Act whereby Section 23 (1A) was added to the principal Act was introduced in Parliament on April 30, 1982 and it became a law on September 25, 1984. A question arose before a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of K S Paripoornan Versus State of Kerala and Others, AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1012, whether the amending Section would have retrospective operation or would apply only from a prospective date. The Supreme Court has held as under:- “(1) Section 23(1A) providing for additional compensation is attracted in every case where reference was pending under Section 18 before the Court {Section 23(1A)}. (2) No additional compensation is payable in appeals pending on or after 24th September, 1984 either in High Court or this Court. (3) Additional compensation under Section 23(1A) is also payable in all those cases where the proceedings were pending and the award had not been made by the Collector on or before 30th April, 1982 {Section 30(1)(a)}. (4) Similarly every land owner is entitled to additional after 24th April, 1982 whether the award by the Collector was made before 24th September, 1984 or not {Section 30(1)(b)}. (5) Additional compensation under Section 23(1A) is liable to be paid by the Collector as well (Section 15 of the Act).” Relying upon the said judgment which has been followed by this Court in the case of Bedi Ram Versus Union of India & Anr., reported in 93 (2001) Delhi Law Times 150 (DB), learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in this case, award by the Land Acquisition Collector was made on April 29, 1974 much before the amending provision came into operation and, therefore, the land-owners ought not to have been granted interest under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court and the decision of this Court, I agree with the submission of the counsel for the appellant. Accordingly, the impugned judgment passed by the reference Court is modified to the extent that the land-owners as per the amended memo of parties shall not be entitled to additional amount under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act. The appeal is disposed of.

REKHA SHARMA, J. JULY 22, 2009 PC/ka