Mr. Gokal Chand Mital. C. J.

( 1 ) BY a notification under Section 4 ofthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894 published on 27/07/1984 the Delhiadministration acquired 2123 bighas and 5 biswas of land in village Samepurfor planned development of Delhi, in particular for setting up an industrialestate. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation for thelevelled land at the rate of Rs. 17,000. 00 per bigha and the land in depressionout of which earth had been. removed for preparing bricks or where therewere brick kilns, awarded Rs. 13,000. 00per bigha. Feeling dissatisfied, theclaimants sought references. Some of the references came up forconsideration before Sh. T. S. Oberoi. Additional District Judge, who byjudgment dated 17/10/1988. enchanced the compensation for thelevelled land to Rs. 25,000. 00 per bigha. For the land in depression,references came up for consideration before different Additional Districtjudges who awarded either Rs. 21,000. 00 or Rs. 22,000. 00 per bigha for suchland.

( 2 ) STILL feeling dissatisfied, the claimants have approcahed this Court. Since all these appeals arise out of the same award and common questionsarise, this judgment will dispose of R. F. A. Nos. 17/89, 18/89, 19/89,26/89, 27/89, 28/89, 29/89. 74/89, 75/89, 79/89, 89/89, 90/89, 91/89,123/89, 124/89, 132/89, 133/89, 134/89, 525/89, 526/89, 528/89,548/89, 551/89, 552/89, 575/89, 577/89, 581/89, 582/89, 583/89, 601/89,619/89, 622/89, 669/89, 670/89, 75/90, 76/90, 77/90, 78/90, 79/90, 80/90,81/90, 82/90, 83/90, 84/90, 85/90, 86/90, 87/90, 88/90, 89/90, 101/90,102/90, 103/90, 112/90, 119/90, 122/90. 123/^0, 140/90, 145/90, 146/90,155/90, 165/90, 173/90, 174/90, 187/90, 192/90, 193/90, 194/90, 195/90,196/90, 197/90, 198/90, 199/90, 200/90, 201/90, 202/90, 203/90, 204/90,205/90, 207/90, 227/90, 238/90,239/90, 250/90, 257/90, 258/90, 259/90,260/90,261/90,262/90,263/90,267/90, 271/90, 272/90, 273/90,274/90,275/90, 276/90, 277/90, 278/90, 337/90, 346/90, 355/90, 356/90, 357/90,358/90, 359/90, 360/90, 361/90, 425/90, 426/90, 433/90, 434/90, 443/90,444/90, 450/90, 460/90. 461/90, 462/90, 478/90, 479/90, 491/90, 493/90,494/90, 508/90, 536/90. 537/90. 612/90, 621/90, 622/90, 623/90, 624/90,026/90, 682/90, 701/90, 707/90, 714/90, 756/90, 820/90, 821/90, 837/90,846/90. 88/91, 99/91, 100/91, 132/91, 133/91, 135/91, 155/91, 156/91,157/91. 167/91 176/91, 182/91, 203/91, 204/91, 219/91, 235/91, 237/91,258/91, 323/91, 341/91, and 345/91.

( 3 ) IT cannot be disputed that the acquired land had gained potentialfor urban and industrial purposes at the time, the acquisition was made andthe same position stands, reflected in the sale instances near about the dateof acquisition. On behalf of the claimants, reliance is placed on thefollowing sale instances:a-5 Judgment of the High Court dated 12/12/1984relating to village Badli in regard to acquisitions dated 24/10/1961 and 4/03/1963 for planned development of Delhi, inwhich for 1961 acquisition, Rs. 7000. 00 per bigha and for 1963acquisition Rs. 8. 000. 00 per bigha was awarded. AA-13 Judgment of the Additional District Judge relating tovillage Pipalthala in regard to acquisition made on 13/06/1980 for the planned development in which Rs. 34,000. 00 per bighawas awarded.

( 4 ) ON behalf of the Union of India, reliance is placed on the following instance. R-1 Award of the Collector relating to acquisition dated 26/03/1983 in village Samepur tor an Engineering College for which Rs. 13,000. 00 per bigha was awarded.

( 5 ) AS regards instance R-1, the award of the Land Acquisitioncollector, besides the acquisition is 16 months earlier to the presentacquisition and the matter is pending consideration before the Additionaldistrict Judge in reference. That would hardly give a guide for determiningthe market value on the date of acquisition involved in these appeals,particularly when we have sale instances.

( 6 ) NORMALLY, we would have discussed all the sale instances reliedon behalf of the claimants, since they are only ask

Click Here to Read the rest of this document