R.F.A. No.263/2000 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + R.F.A. No.263/2000 Decided on : 25.01.2010 IN THE MATTER OF : KUNWARANI MRS. MEENAKSHI KHURANA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Deepak Khosla, Adv. versus UOI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar with Mr. Ramesh Ray, Advs. for UOI. CORAM * HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI 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 HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL) 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12.11.1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge on a reference petition preferred by the appellant under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (in short ‘the Act’) against the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Collector @ Rs.8,000/- per bigha in respect of the land situated at village Chilla Saroda Bangar covered by award No.39/82-83. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 17.11.1980, followed by a notification under Section 6 on 29.9.1981. 2. By the impugned judgment, the learned Additional District Judge maintained the order of the Land Acquisition Collector and dismissed the reference petition preferred by the appellant seeking enhancement of compensation from Rs.8,000/- per bigha to Rs.1,50,000/- per bigha. 3. Counsels for the parties state that during the pendency of the present appeal, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of RFA No.84/1999 entitled “Harprat & Ors. vs. UOI & Ors.” along with other connected appeals, passed a judgment dated 12.07.2002 wherein it was held that the land owners therein were entitled to compensation at the market value of Rs.3,45,000/- per bigha apart from other statutory benefits. The aforesaid judgment was taken in appeal by the UOI before the Supreme Court. The aforesaid appeal registered as Civil Appeal No.2367/2006 entitled “UOI vs. Harpat & Ors.”, along with other connected appeals, was decided by the Supreme Court, vide judgment dated 12.5.2009, whereunder the compensation as fixed by the High Court was scaled down to Rs.76,550/- per bigha along with other statutory benefits including interest. R.F.A. No.263/2000 Page 3 of 4 4. Counsel for the appellant states that the present appeal be also decided on the same lines by granting compensation to the appellant @ Rs.76,550/- per bigha. 5. Counsel for the respondent/UOI states that the appellant cannot claim entitlement to receive compensation at the aforesaid rate for the reason that pursuant to the notification issued under Section 9 of the Act, he had confined his claim for enhanced compensation before the Land Acquisition Collector to Rs.55,000/- per bigha. In support of the said submission, he relies on a judgment of this Court in the case of Hari Chand & Ors. vs. UOI & Ors. reported as 2009 X AD (DELHI) 256. In the said case, it was held that the amendment to Section 25 of the Act came into operation on 24.9.1984 and it would not have any retrospective effect and, therefore, would apply only to acquisitions made subsequent to the date. 6. In the present case, the award, subject matter of the impugned judgment, is dated 30.9.1982, which is prior to the date of amendment of Section 25 of the Act. Hence the appellant herein is also governed by the un-amended Section 25 of the Act. 7. Counsel for the appellant concedes the aforesaid position and states that in these circumstances, the enhancement of compensation in the case of the land, subject matter of the present appeal, be also confined to Rs.55,000/- per bigha along with other statutory benefits including interest. 8. Accordingly, the present appeal is disposed of by holding that the appellant shall be entitled to enhanced compensation @ Rs.55,000/- per bigha along with other statutory benefits including interest thereon under Section 28 of the Act for the first year @ 9% per annum from the date of dis-possession, and thereafter, @ 15% per annum till the date of tender of compensation, which includes the benefit granted in the case of Sunder vs. UOI reported as (93) 2001 DLT 569. 9. There shall be no orders as to costs. HIMA KOHLI,J JANUARY 25, 2010 sk