* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% RFA NO. 392 OF 2000
+ Date of Decision: 3rd August, 2010
# UNION OF INDIA ...Appellant
! Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate
Versus
$ OM PRAKASH MALIK & ANR. ...Respondents
^ Through: Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Adv. for DDA
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:(ORAL)
This appeal was filed by the Union of India against the judgment
dated 15th January, 2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge,
Delhi while deciding a reference petition under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894. That reference came to be made at the instance of
the land owner, the respondent no. 1 herein, whose land in village
Mandavali, which was sought to be acquired vide notification dated 13 th
November, 1959 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act followed by
the notification dated 12th July, 1966 under Section 6. Award was made by
the Land Acquisition Collector on 22nd December, 1982. The Reference
RFA 392/2000 Page 1 of 3
Court disposed of the reference by the impugned judgment and gave some
enhancement in the compensation to the land owner relying upon one
judgment of this Court in RFA No. 311/74, “Keshav Dass Vs. Union of
India. While awarding enhanced compensation the Reference Court also
ordered payment of solatium @ 30% on the market value of the acquired
land and interest @ 9% p.a. for the first year on the market value from the
date of taking possession and thereafter @ 15% p.a. till the date of payment
of enhanced compensation gave interest @ 6% p.a. under Section 4(3) of
the Land Acquisition(Amendment and Validation) Act, 1967 for the period
of three years from the date of notification under Section 4 to the date of
tender of compensation awarded by the Court, which was to be over and
above the interest payable under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act.
2. Though the appellant – Union of India had challenged the entire
judgment of the Reference Court but during the course of hearing of this
appeal its counsel Mr. Sanjay Poddar restricted the challenge only to the
extent it has been observed by the trial Court that the interest under Section
4 of the Act of 1967 would be payable upto the date of tender of
compensation awarded by the ‘Court’ in view of the fact that the
compensation in respect of village Mandavali had been fixed in accordance
with the decision of this Court in Keshav Dass’ case and which has attained
finality. Learned counsel submitted that the word ‘Court’ appears to have
been written by mistake only and, in fact, it should have been ‘Collector’.
In support of this submission Mr. Poddar has cited one decision of this
RFA 392/2000 Page 2 of 3
Court in “Mani Dass Sharma & Ors. Vs. Union of India” reported as 19
(2001) DLT 673 and one unreported order of a Division Bench of this
Court dated 18th March, 2004 in RFA 248/2000. In the former judgment
the Division Bench had clearly held that the interest under Section 4 of the
Act of 1967 was payable upto the date of tender of the compensation
amount by the ‘Collector’ while in the other order cited by Mr. Poddar the
word ‘Court’ mentioned in the judgment under challenge in that case also
was substituted with the word ‘Collector’.
3. This submission made on behalf of the appellant appears to be
justified and the concluding paragraph of the impugned judgment,
therefore, is modified to the extent that the relief of interest awarded under
Section 4 of the Act of 1967 shall be upto the date of tender of
compensation awarded by the Collector and rest of the judgment of the
Reference Court shall remain as it is. This appeal stands disposed of
accordingly.
P.K. BHASIN,J
AUGUST 03, 2010
sh
RFA 392/2000 Page 3 of 3