* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% RFA NO. 927 OF 2003
+ Date of Decision: 1st December, 2010
# UOI ...Appellant
! Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate
Versus
$ PRATAP SINGH & ORS. ...Respondents
^ Through: None
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 Union of India against the judgment and
decree dated 22nd February, 2002 passed by the learned Additional
District Judge in Land Acquisition case no. 76/1991 whereby the
compensation in respect of the land of the respondents no. 1 to 4 in
village Dallupura acquired by the Government pursuant to the
notifications dated 17th November, 1980 under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act and 29th September, 1981 under Section 6 of the said Act
vide award no. 79/1982-83 of the Land Acquisition Collector was
enhanced from ` 12,500 per bigha awarded by the Land Acquisition
RFA 927/2003 Page 1 of 4
Collector to ` 3,45,000 per bigha.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Reference
Court while fixing the market value of the acquired land of the
respondents nos. 1 to 4 at ` 3,45,000 per bigha had relied upon two
decisions of this Court in “Anil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India“, 86
(2001) Delhi Law Times 825 and the other one is unreported one in RFA
No. 338/94 “Rattan Lal vs. UOI” decided on 24-08-2001 wherein this
Court had fixed the market value of lands in villages Kondli & Dallupura
respectively at ` 3,45,000 per bigha. Many cases were disposed of by this
Court by these two judgments in which Delhi Development Authority was
one of the parties as the beneficiary of the acquisition of lands in these
two villages. Mr. Poddar further submitted that the Delhi Development
Authority as well as Union of India challenged both these decisions of this
Court before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the judgments of this Court
in both the cases were set aside vide judgment dated 3rd August, 2004
rendered in the lead case of “Delhi Development Authority Vs. Bali Ram
Sharma & Others” reported as (2004) 6 Supreme Court Cases 533. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court while setting aside the fixation of market value of
lands in villages Kondli and Dallupura at ` 3,45,000 per bigha reduced the
same to ` 76,550 per bigha relying upon its earlier decision in “Karan
Singh Vs. Union of India”, (1997) 8 SCC 186. In view of the said judgment
of Hon’ble Supreme Court, learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that the respondents were not entitled to get compensation in respect of
RFA 927/2003 Page 2 of 4
their land at a rate higher than ` 76,550 per bigha and therefore, the
present appeal deserves to be allowed.
3. The respondents nos. 1 to 4, who are the claimants were served
with the notice of this appeal and they entered appearance through
counsel on 22-01-2004 but thereafter they were not represented when
the appeal was taken up for hearing though opportunity was given to
them to have their case argued. Consequently, arguments have been
advanced in the matter only by counsel for the appellant. Counsel for the
appellant had also submitted that the respondents nos. 1 to 4 might not
be interested in defending this appeal because of the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bali Ram’s case (supra) in which market value of
village Dallupura, which is the village involved in the present appeal also,
has been fixed at ` 76,550 per bigha.
4. I have gone through the judgment of the Reference Court and find
that the learned Reference Court had relied upon the already referred two
judgments of this Court while fixing the market value of land of the
respondents nos. 1 to 4 at ` 345 per square yard (` 3,45,000 per bigha)
and a perusal of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bali Ram’s
case (supra) shows that these two judgments of this Court relied upon by
the Reference Court have been set aside and the market value of land in
village Dallupura has been fixed at ` 76,550 per bigha. Therefore, the
impugned judgment of the Reference Court in the present case cannot be
sustained and so the same is modified to the extent that the market value
RFA 927/2003 Page 3 of 4
of the land of the respondents no. 1-4 shall stand fixed at ` 76,550 per
bigha instead of ` 3,45,000 per bigha fixed by the Reference Court and the
statutory benefits awarded to the respondents nos. 1 to 4 shall be payable
now on the said amount of ` 76,550 per bigha. This appeal stands
disposed of accordingly. The appellant shall be entitled to proportionate
costs of the appeal.
P.K. BHASIN,J
December 01, 2010/pg
RFA 927/2003 Page 4 of 4