$-132-138 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 328/2007 UOI Through: ..... Appellant Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate, Mr.Ramesh Ray, Advocate and Mr.Ashish Tanwar, Advocate for UOI Versus JAI LAL THROUGH LRS. &ORS. Respondents Through: Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocate with Mohd.Azam Ansari and Mr.B.K.Rout Ray, Advocates + LA.APP. 636/2010 HARI RAM & ORS. Appellants Through: Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocate with Mohd.Azam Ansari and Mr.B.K.Rout Ray, Advocates Versus UOI & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate, Mr.Ramesh Ray, Advocate and Mr.Ashish Tanwar, Advocate for UOI + LA.APP. 641/2010 BADAM SINGH & ANR. Appellants Through: Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocate with Mohd.Azam Ansari and Mr.B.K.Rout Ray, Advocates Versus UOI & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate, Mr.Ramesh Ray, Advocate and Mr.Ashish Tanwar, Advocate for UOI LA.APP.Nos.328/07,636/10,641/10,648/10,334/07,19/08 &83/10 Page 1 of 4 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified + LA.APP. 648/2010 RAJESH KUMAR &ORS. Appellants Through: Mr.S.K.Rout,Advocate with Mohd.Azam Ansari and Mr.B.K.Rout Ray, Advocates Versus UOI & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate, Mr.Rannesh Ray, Advocate and Mr.Ashish Tanwar, Advocate for UOI + LA.APP. 334/2007 UOI Appellant Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate, Mr.Ramesh Ray, Advocate and Mr.Ashish Tanwar, Advocate for UOI Versus HARI KISHAN THROUGH LRS. St ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.S.K.Rout,Advocate with Mohd.Azam Ansari and Mr.B.K.Rout Ray, Advocates + LA.APP. 19/2008 UOI Appellant Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate, Mr.Ramesh Ray, Advocate and Mr.Ashish Tanwar, Advocate for UOI Versus OM PRAKASH & ORS. Respondents Through: Mr.S.K.Rout, Advocate with Mohd.Azam Ansari and Mr.B.K.Rout Ray, Advocates + LA.APP. 83/2010 LAKH! Appellant lA.APP.Nos.328/07,636/10, 641/10,648/10,334/07,19/08&83/10 Page 2of4 Through: Mr.S.K.Rout,Advocate with Mohd.Azam Ansari and Mr.B.K.Rout Ray, Advocates Versus UOI & ANR. Respondents Through: jVlr.SanjayPoddar, Advocate, Mr.Rannesh Ray, Advocate and Mr.Ashish Tanwar, Advocate for UOI CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG ORDER % 03.06.2011 1. All matters pertain to acquisition of land in village Bamnoli. Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act is dated 24.9.1987. 2. In all cases fair market value assessed for purposes of compensation by the ReferenceCourt is ^37,000/-per bigha save and except the order of the Reference Court which is a subject matter of challenge in LA.APP.No.328/2007where the sum assessed is @ ^40,330/-per bigha. 3. Pertaining to a notification dated 9.1.1987, deciding a batch of appeals, lead matter being LA.APP.No.303-311/2006Risal Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors.. decision being dated 25.5.2006 a Division Bench of this Court assessed fair market value of agricultural land in village Bamnoli to be ?37,000/- as of 9.1.1987. 4. In a decision dated 19.12.2008 lead matter being LA.APP.No.193/2006 PraiaD Sinah (through LRs.) Us. UOI & Ors.. pertaining to village Tikri Kalan and Ghevra a Division Bench of this Court held that date shows that till around 1995-96 prices of land post 1996 were 10% per annum. LA.APP.Nos.328/07,636/10, 641/10,648/10,334/07,19/08&83/10 Page 3 Of4 1 '£ JV 5. Pertaining to the village in question we have no evidence before us whether the prices rose by 12% or 10%. 6. A perusal of the decision of the Division Bench in Risal Singh's case (supra) would reveal that pertaining to village Bharthal and Bindapur, in the decision reported as (65) 2002 DRJ 1 Rama Nand Vs. UOI & Ann. 12% increase in land prices per annum was determined. 7. In my opinion a fair and just solution would be go give benefit of 12% increase in land prices in the instant case and treating 9.1.1987 to be the base date and land prices would come to ?40,330/- perbigha. 8. Accordingly, LA.APP.No.328/2007 as also LA.APP. No.334/2007 and LA.APP.No.19/2008 are dismissed. 9. Pending applications therein are allowed in terms of the prayer made. 10. LA.APP.No.636/2010, LA.APP.No.641/2010, LA.APP. No.648/2010 and LA.APP.No.83/2010 stand disposed of enhancing the compensation payable to the appellants to ^40,330/- per bigha. Further decreed that the appellants would be entitled to statutory benefits on the enhanced compensation as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and as per the decision of the Supreme Court reported as 93 (2001) DLT 569 Sunder Us. Union of India as interpreted in Pratap Singh's case (supra) but interest not to be paid on the enhanced compensation for the period there was delay in preferring the appeais^ including the delay in re-filing the appeals. Proportionate costs as well. PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. JUNE 03,2011 (L-s ^ rk lA.APP.Nos.328/07,636/10,641/10,648/10,334/07,19/08&83/10 Page4 of 4 61