Union Of India vs Harpat Singh & Ors

1. Chilla Saroda Bangar is now a part of East Delhi. There is another small village in the said area known as Chilla Saroda Khader. For development of the said area, several notifications were issued not only in respect of the aforementioned two villages but also villages known as Gharoli, Kondli and Dallupura. Indisputably, lands of all these villages were subjected to acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act wherefor diverse notifications were issued from 1979 to 1987. Land Acquisition 2 proceedings were, however, initiated in respect of different villages separately.

Before, however, we advert to the aforementioned decisions and some others, we would like to notice the basic details of these cases :

3. We may furthermore notice that in respect of lands situated in village Gharoli, the learned Land Acquisition Collector awarded a sum of Rs.9,000/- per Bigha.

11. Drawing our attention to the fact that the High Court for cogent and sufficient reasons, rightly chose not to follow the decisions in Karan Singh and Bali Ram Sharma and in view of the location of the village, vis- `-vis, Gharoli, Kondli and Dallupura, stating :

16. On the strength of this judgment 1/3rd of the price of the land is accordingly deducted whereby market value of the land of the petitioner would come to Rs.90/- per sqmtr.

Market value of the land of the petitioner is 14 assessed at Rs.76.55 per sq.yrds. i.e. Rs.76,550/- per bigha. The issue is decided accordingly."

22. Mr. Singh conceded that we may follow Karan Singh and Bali Ram Sharma. In view of Karan Singh and Bali Ram Sharma, we must proceed on the basis that the minimum amount of compensation which must be paid should be determined at Rs.76.55 p. per square yard. Lands situated in village Chilla Saroda Bangar and village Chilla Saroda Khader, however, appeared to be situated nearer Delhi as compared to Kondli, Gharoli and Dallupura.

25. We, however, cannot ignore the fact that some construction activities had already started in the village in question by the DDA itself. Some amenities, although the village might not have been fully developed 19 but road, electricity, water, sewerage were there, whereas the lands situated in Kondli and those others were agricultural lands. We, therefore, are of the opinion that keeping in view its proximity to Delhi, and as the appellant itself had conceded that the minimum compensation be calculated at the rate of Rs.76.55 per sq. yard, that the interest of justice shall be subserved if the market value is raised to 10% thereover. Correspondingly, the other statutory benefits including interest must be awarded.

26. For the aforementioned purpose, we have also taken into consideration that appeals were otherwise barred by limitation and that is one of the factors, we must place on record, had weighed with us for determining the said amount.

28. So far as CA No.4204 of 2006 is concerned, as order dated 24.4.2006 had not been complied with, the legal heirs of the original respondent having not been brought on record, the said appeal must be held to have abated and is dismissed accordingly. 20

29. All the appeals except C.A. No. 4204 of 2006 are allowed in part on the above terms, i.e., paragraph 26, 28 and 29. In the facts and circumstances of this case, however, there shall be no order as to costs.

MAY 12, 2009