RFA No.86/2002 Page 1 of 5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + R.F.A. No.86/2002 Decided on 04.02.2010 IN THE MATTER OF : CHANDAN (DECEASED)THROUGH LRs. & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through : Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. versus UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through : Mr. Ramesh Ray, Adv. CORAM * HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral) 1. The present appeal is filed by the appellants/land owners against the judgment dated 10.10.2001 passed by the learned ADJ on a reference received under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short ‘the Act’) granting enhancement of compensation @ Rs.34,150/- per bigha as on 19.8.1976, by relying on a judgment of this Court passed in a batch of appeals, lead matter being RFA No.585/1987 entitled Bedi Ram vs. UOI decided on 23.3.2001, reported as 93 (2001) DLT 150. 2. Aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by the RFA No.86/2002 Page 2 of 5 Reference Court, the appellants have preferred the present appeal claiming compensation @ Rs.1,00,000/- per bigha, i.e., Rs.100/- per sq. yard. In the case of Bedi Ram (supra), the Division Bench considered the appeals preferred by the land owners/claimants whose land situated in village Kondli, Delhi, was acquired through two separate notifications under Section 4(1) of the Act. The first notification was issued on 8.2.1973, which culminated in Award No.2/78-79 made on 8.5.1978. The second notification under Sections 4 & 6 of the Act was issued on 19.8.1976, which culminated in Award No.4/79-80 made on 22.5.1979. 3. Insofar as the market value of the land pertaining to the land acquired through an earlier notification dated 8.2.1973 was concerned, the Division Bench held that compensation was payable @ Rs.22,850/- per bigha. In respect of land covered by a subsequent notification dated 19.8.1976, the Division Bench allowed the progressive increase @ 12% per annum for each year separately over and above the market value of Rs.8,064/- per bigha as on 30.11.1959 and fixed the fair market value of the land in village Kondli at Rs.34,150/- per bigha, as on 19.8.1976. Over and above the amount of compensation, the appellants therein were held entitled to payment of solatium and interest as per the order of the Reference Court. In addition to the enhance market value, they were also held entitled to payment of additional amount @ 12% per annum for the period RFA No.86/2002 Page 3 of 5 commencing from the date of publication of the notification under Sub- section (1) of Section 4 of the Act to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking over possession, whichever is earlier, in all cases where the award was made by the Collector after 30.4.1982 or where reference was pending before the Reference Court on 30.4.1982. It was however held that the additional amount would not be payable to such of the appellants in whose case the award was made by the Collector prior to 30.4.1982 and reference petition was decided prior to 30.4.1982, on the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of K.S. Paripoornan vs. State of Kerala, reported as (1994) 5 SCC 593. It was also directed that in case the interest was ultimately held payable on solatium by the Supreme Court in a reference made to the Larger Bench, vide order dated 10.8.1998 in the case of Kapur Chand Jain (dead) & Ors. vs. State of Government of H.P. & Ors., reported as AIR 1999 SC 3470, the appellants therein would also be entitled to be paid interest. While disposing of the appeals of the land owners on the aforesaid terms, the cross appeals of the respondent/UOI were dismissed by the Division Bench. 4. Counsels for the parties state that the judgment in the case of Bedi Ram (supra) has attained finality as neither the appellant nor the UOI preferred any appeal against the same. It is pertinent to note that the respondent/UOI had filed an appeal against the impugned judgment, registered as RFA No.733/2007 entitled UOI vs. Chandan RFA No.86/2002 Page 4 of 5 & Ors. The limited issue raised by the respondent/UOI was as to whether the amount of compensation awarded by the Reference Court was in accordance with law and in consonance of the judgment in the case of Bedi Ram (supra). In the course of arguments, the UOI confined its challenge to the issue of extension of benefit under Section 23-1A of the Act to the land owners. It was submitted that as the award in question was passed on 22.5.1979, therefore, the benefit under Section 23-1A of the Act could not be extended to the land owners. 5. The aforesaid submissions were considered by the Division Bench and, vide order dated 3.2.2005, the judgment and decree of reference was modified to the extent that it was held in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K.S. Paripoornan (supra), the appellants therein could not be entitled to the benefit of Section 23-1A of the Act, the award having been passed prior to the cut off date, i.e., 30.4.1982. However, the issue with regard to the amount of compensation was not considered by the Division Bench in view of the judgment in the case of Bedi Ram (supra). 6. Counsels for the parties state that even in the present case, notifications under Sections 4 & 6 of the Act were issued on 19.8.1976 and hence the present case is covered by the judgment in the case of Bedi Ram (supra) and may be disposed of on the same analogy. 7. The aforesaid submission is borne out from a perusal of the RFA No.86/2002 Page 5 of 5 impugned judgment, which shows that the reference order was passed in respect of the land situated in village Kondli, in respect of which award No.4/79-80 came to be made on 22.5.1979, pursuant to notifications issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Act on 19.8.1976. The present appeal is accordingly disposed of on the same lines as in the case of Bedi Ram (supra). The market value of the land in question is maintained at Rs.34,150/- per bigha, along with other statutory benefits as may be payable to the appellants mentioned in para 3 herein above, except for the benefits under Section 23-1A of the Act, in view of the fact that in the present case, the award was made by the Collector prior to the date, 30.4.1982. 8. No orders as to costs. (HIMA KOHLI) FEBRUARY 04, 2010 JUDGE sk