* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LA.APP. NO. 472-476 OF 2005
% Date of Decision: 1st August, 2011
# OM PRAKASH & ORS. ...Appellants
! Through : Mr. Deepak Khosla, Advocate
Versus
$ UOI AND ANOTHER ...Respondents
^ Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar , Advocate for
UOI/Respondent No. 1
WITH
+ LA.APP. NO. 488-91 OF 2005
# CHANDER BHAN & ORS. ...Appellants
! Through : Mr. Deepak Khosla, Advocate
Versus
$ UOI AND ANOTHER ...Respondents
^ Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar , Advocate for
UOI/Respondent No. 1
WITH
+ LA.APP. NO. 492-495 OF 2005
# BAL KRISHAN SHARMA & ORS. ...Appellants
! Through : Mr. Deepak Khosla, Advocate
Versus
LA.APP.NOs. 472-476, 488-91, 492-495,496-501,
541-44, 545-51 of 2005 and 1267 of 2008 Page 1 of 7
$ UOI AND ANOTHER ...Respondents
^ Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar , Advocate for
UOI/Respondent No. 1
WITH
+ LA.APP. NO. 496-501 OF 2005
# DESH RAM & ORS. ...Appellant
Through : Mr. Deepak Khosla, Advocate
Versus
$ UOI AND ANOTHER ...Respondents
^ Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar , Advocate for
UOI/Respondent No. 1
WITH
+ LA.APP. NO. 541-44 OF 2005
# SHEELA & ORS. ...Appellants
! Through : Mr. Deepak Khosla, Advocate
Versus
$ UOI AND ANOTHER ...Respondents
^ Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar , Advocate for
UOI/Respondent No. 1
WITH
+ LA.APP. NO. 545-51 OF 2005
# SATVIR SINGH & ORS. ...Appellants
! Through : Mr. Deepak Khosla, Advocate
LA.APP.NOs. 472-476, 488-91, 492-495,496-501,
541-44, 545-51 of 2005 and 1267 of 2008 Page 2 of 7
Versus
$ UOI AND ANOTHER ...Respondents
^ Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar , Advocate for
UOI/Respondent No. 1
AND
+ LA.APP. NO. 1267 OF 2008
# SHRI CHAND(DECEASED) THR. LRs & ORS. ...Appellants
! Through : Mr. Deepak Kohosla & Mr.L.S. Rana,
Advocates
Versus
$ UOI AND ANOTHER ...Respondents
^ Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar , Advocate for
UOI/Respondent No. 1
CORAM:
* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN
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:
These appeals arise out of the judgments of the learned Reference
Court disposing different References made by the Land Acquisition
LA.APP.NOs. 472-476, 488-91, 492-495,496-501,
541-44, 545-51 of 2005 and 1267 of 2008 Page 3 of 7
Collector under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act(„the Act‟ in short)
in respect of the lands belonging to the appellants in village Amberhai
which were acquired vide Award No.13/1991-92 pursuant to the
notifications dated 10/7/1990 and 24/8/90 under Sections 4 and 6
respectively of the Act. Since same points were involved in all the appeals
they were heard together and now are being disposed of also together by
this common judgment.
2. Vide award no. 13/91-92 dated 10/3/92 market value of the land
falling in block A was fixed @ Rs. 4.65 lakhs per acre i.e. Rs.96,975/- per
bigha and @ Rs18,500/- per bigha in respect of land in block B.
Dissatisfied with the said land rates fixed by the LAC, the landowners-
appellants got references made to the District Judge under section 18 of
the Act. The Reference Court , however, rejected the claims of the
appellants for further enhancement in compensation amount relying upon
a decision of this Court in the case of “Tej Ram vs. UOI“, 111 (2004)
DLT 465, which was also a case arising out of the same Award which is
the subject matter of present appeals.
3. The appellants then approached this Court by filing the present appeals
under Section 54 of the Act and have claimed fixation of the market value
LA.APP.NOs. 472-476, 488-91, 492-495,496-501,
541-44, 545-51 of 2005 and 1267 of 2008 Page 4 of 7
of their lands taking into consideration the land rate fixed in respect of the
land in village Kakrola determined by this Court @ ` 1,20,500 per bigha
vide judgment dated 23.10.2008 in a batch of appeals of village Kakrola,
the lead case being “LAA No. 69/2007 “Ved Parkash Versus Union Of
India”. Village Kakrola is claimed by the appellants to be adjoining,
village Amberhai.
4. The learned Trial Court gave its findings in the impugned order
dated 19.02.2005 which has been reproduced as:-
“16. After considering the arguments of counsels for the parties, I am
convinced with the arguments addressed by counsel for Union of India
and I am of the view that as Hon’ble High Court has already determined
and fixed the market value of the land of village Amberhai which was
acquired on the same date as in the present cases so market value of the
land of village Kakrola fixed by my Ld. Predecessor will have to be
ignored.
17. Counsel for the petitioners also referred to testimonies of PW1 and
PW 2 and documents filed and proved on record and submitted that in
case of Shri Tej Ram, Supra, the petitioners had failed to produce any
evidence that is why Hon’ble High Court did not enhance the market
value of the land of village Amberhai, whereas in the present cases,
many evidence oral and documentary have been adduced and therefore,
this Court should fix and determined the market value of village
Amberhai more than the value of land fixed by Hon’ble High Court in
case of Tej Ram, Supra.
18. I perused the testimonies of PW1 and PW2, Sale Deed Ex.P2 of
village Bagrola, other sale deeds of village Kakrola and on perusal
thereof, I am of the view that there is no convincing evidence on record
which may justify the fixation of market value of the land over and above
the market value of the land finally adjudicated upon by High Court of
Delhi in case of Tej Ram, Supra, therefore, this argument of counsel for
petitioners is no convincing.
19. In view of the reasons and discussions made herein above. It is held
that Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has finally adjudicated upon that the
LA.APP.NOs. 472-476, 488-91, 492-495,496-501,
541-44, 545-51 of 2005 and 1267 of 2008 Page 5 of 7
appropriate and reasonable market value of the land in question was
`96,875/- per bigha at the relevant time. This much of value of the land
of village Amberhai has already been fixed and determined by Land
Acquisition Collector. Therefore, it is held that claimants are not entitled
for any enhancement of compensation and this issue is answered
accordingly in favour of the respondents and against the claimants.”
5. It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that this
Court had observed in the case of “Ishwar Singh vs. UOI” (RFA No.
43/87 decided on 02-04-2002) that villages Kakrola, Baprola, Palam and
Amberhai are located adjacent to each other and so the learned Reference
Court should have fixed the market value of the land which has been fixed
in respect of village Kakrola by this Court in “Ved Prakash vs. UOI“,
(RFA No. 69/2007 decided on 23-10-2008) at ` 1,20,500 per bigha for
village Amberhai also, which is the village involved in these appeals. In
support of this submission, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon
a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in “UOI vs. Bhagwan Singh
and Ors.“, 47 (1982) DLT 205.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for Union of India relying upon
the observations of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court made in para no. 9 of the
judgment reported as “Kanwar Singh vs. UOI“, (1998) 8 SCC 136
submitted that just because two villages are adjoining to each other the
LA.APP.NOs. 472-476, 488-91, 492-495,496-501,
541-44, 545-51 of 2005 and 1267 of 2008 Page 6 of 7
same cannot be the decisive factor for adopting the market value of the
land fixed in respect of one village for the other village also unless it is
shown by the aggrieved land owners that situation and potentiality of the
land in two different villages were the same, which, contended Mr.
Poddar, in the present case the appellants had failed to establish.
7. As noticed already, the trial Court has observed that there is no
satisfactory evidence adduced by the appellants herein in support of their
claim for further enhancement in compensation. Learned counsel for the
appellants could not point out any evidence adduced by the appellants to
show that the land in village Kakrola and Ambarhai had the same
potentiality. Therefore, the learned Reference Court was fully justified in
accepting the market value of the land in village Ambarhai which this
Court had accepted in Tej Ram‟s case(supra).
8. These appeals are accordingly dismissed.
9. Original judgment be kept in LA.APP. 472-476/2005 and its copy
be kept in other files.
AUGUST 01, 2011 P.K. BHASIN,J sh
LA.APP.NOs. 472-476, 488-91, 492-495,496-501,
541-44, 545-51 of 2005 and 1267 of 2008 Page 7 of 7