* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No. 388/1987
% DATE OF DECISION : 16th July, 2008
Mr. Ram Mehar ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. I.S. Dahiya, Advocate
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?
JUDGMENT
MUKUL MUDGAL, J: (ORAL)
1. This appeal arises against the order of learned Additional
District Judge, Delhi dated 19th July, 1986 in LAC No. 46/1984.
The said order disposed of application reference under Section
30/31 of the Land Acquisition Act for apportionment of
compensation in Village Sultan Pur Mazra, Delhi.
2. The claim of the Appellant is that while he owned an area
of 53470 sq. yds., he had sold only area 24870 sq. yds., as
RFA No. 388/1987 Page 1 of 3
detailed in CM No. 1784/2000 as per Annexure A. He, therefore,
claims that compensation of Rs. 4,28,630/- as shown in the said
chart has been wrongly denied to him on an erroneous ground
by the learned ADJ. The reasoning of the learned ADJ is as
follows :-
“4. The above parties have produced their sale
deeds executed by Ram Mehar himself or his
attorney Tarif Singh. From these sale deeds I have
verified that these persons have proved their claims
for the compensation of the land detailed above. So
compensation be paid to them as stated above for
then share of land.
5. Claim of Ram Mehar is rejected because he has
not filed the plan of the plots made by him.”
3. Accordingly, the Appellant has stated that the plea of the
Appellant for quantum compensation due to him has been
rejected merely on the ground that because the plan of the
plots had not been filed.
4. Learned counsel for Union of India pointed out that in
Section 30/31 reference and appeal arising thereof
respondent/UOI has no role to play. However, in case any
amount is already released to the Appellant, the Appellant be
directed to indemnify the same to LAC.
5. In our view, the claim of the Appellant has to be examined
in light of the land sold and not to be rejected on the ground
that plan has not been filed. We find merit in the contention of
the Appellant. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19 th July,
RFA No. 388/1987 Page 2 of 3
1986 passed by the learned ADJ in LAC No. 46/1984 is set aside.
The case be remanded back to the trial court for its disposal in
accordance with law. After ascertaining the claim in respect of
the total land owned by the Appellant, the amount of land sold
and amount of land being held by the Appellant till now.
6. Parties to appear before the learned District Judge on 17th
September, 2008 who shall mark the case to an appropriate
court. The trial court while deciding the case shall give notice to
all affected parties including the Gramsabha/Director,
Panchayat Sabha. Notice need not required to be given to the
parties who have already received the compensation.
MUKUL MUDGAL, J
MANMOHAN, J
th
JULY 16 , 2008
rn
RFA No. 388/1987 Page 3 of 3