Back
High Court Of Delhi
MAHENDER SINGH - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Decided On : 05/11/2006
The Court held that the categorization of land into Groups A and B was not justified and that all claimants should be granted uniform compensation for acquisition of their lands. The Court also held that the claimants were entitled to an increase in the awarded amount of compensation from 1st April, 1996 to 15th November, 1996 (the date of notification under Section 4 under the Act) @11.5% compounded annually on the compensation awarded by the Reference Court/Collector, interest on the amount of solatium for the period for which they have not been paid interest in accordance with law, and all the benefits of interest and statutory payments under the provisions of the Act including Section 23 (1-A) of the Act on the enhanced compensation.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were dissatisfied with the award of the Collector and preferred petitions under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to in short as the Act ). In the case of Chajju Ram vs. Union of India and another, LAC No. 35/2001, the learned Reference Court vide its judgment enhanced the compensation payable to the claimants while maintaining the categorisation of the lands and awarded the compensation @ Rs. 2,41,452/- per bigha for Block A lands and @ Rs. 2,01,452/- per bigha for Block B lands. While deciding this case, the Reference Court had also relied upon the judgment of the High Court in the case of Jai Lal (dead) through LRs vs. Union of India 2002 (62) DRJ 227. Against this judgment of the Reference Court, the Union of India preferred appeals praying that the judgment of the Court be set aside as the compensation awarded to the claimants was unreasonably high while the claimants preferred appeals against the same judgment praying for a further enhancement of the compensation awarded to them. Both these appeals were disposed of by a judgment of this Court in the case of Chajju Ram (D) through LRs vs. Union of India and ors. RFA No. 522/2002, decided on 20.11.2003 whereby judgment of the Reference court was set aside by the High Court and the case was remanded to the Reference court with the following observations and directions:-
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the categorization of land into Groups A and B was not justified and that all claimants should be granted uniform compensation for acquisition of their lands. The Court also held that the claimants were entitled to an increase in the awarded amount of compensation from 1st April, 1996 to 15th November, 1996 (the date of notification under Section 4 under the Act) @11.5% compounded annually on the compensation awarded by the Reference Court/Collector, interest on the amount of solatium for the period for which they have not been paid interest in accordance with law, and all the benefits of interest and statutory payments under the provisions of the Act including Section 23 (1-A) of the Act on the enhanced compensation.
Issues: Whether the categorization of land into Groups A and B was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the categorization of land into Groups A and B was not justified and that all claimants should be granted uniform compensation for acquisition of their lands. The Court also held that the claimants were entitled to an increase in the awarded amount of compensation from 1st April, 1996 to 15th November, 1996 (the date of notification under Section 4 under the Act) @11.5% compounded annually on the compensation awarded by the Reference Court/Collector, interest on the amount of solatium for the period for which they have not been paid interest in accordance with law, and all the benefits of interest and statutory payments under the provisions of the Act including Section 23 (1-A) of the Act on the enhanced compensation.
Final Decision: The Court held that the categorization of land into Groups A and B was not justified and that all claimants should be granted uniform compensation for acquisition of their lands. The Court also held that the claimants were entitled to an increase in the awarded amount of compensation from 1st April, 1996 to 15th November, 1996 (the date of notification under Section 4 under the Act) @11.5% compounded annually on the compensation awarded by the Reference Court/Collector, interest on the amount of solatium for the period for which they have not been paid interest in accordance with law, and all the benefits of interest and statutory payments under the provisions of the Act including Section 23 (1-A) of the Act on the enhanced compensation.
( 1 ) BY this common judgment, we would dispose of the above-mentioned appeals as they arise from a common judgment giving rise to common questions of law and fact. The necessary facts are that a notification under Section 4 and 17 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to in short as the Act ) was issued on 15. 11. 1996 vide notification no. F. 10 (39) 96/landb/la for acquisition of lands measuring about 3604 bighas and 18 biswas situated in the revenue estate of village Bawana, Delhi. These lands were acquired for a public purpose namely for ?shifting of Industrial area from City area of delhi/new Delhi?, in furtherance to which Section 6 declaration was issued on 21. 11. 1996. The respondents took the possession of the acquired land measuring about 3549 bighas and 19 biswas on 18. 12. 1996 and a Kabza Karwai report was prepared for the same. It was mentioned in that report that rabi crop was standing on the above acquired lands. The Land Acquisition Collector rendered the award bearing no. 1/97-98 on 4. 7. 1997 dividing the entire acquired lands into two blocks/categories being Blocks A and B. In the former i. e. Block A, the lands consisted of agricultural lands, while the latter consisted of the lands which had pits/gadhas. After having recorded the evidence, the Collector fixed the value of the acquired lands as follows:-"block A - Rs. 1,86,500/- per bigha block B - Rs. 1,61,500/- per bigha"
( 2 ) LANDS measuring about 1887 bighas was taken in Category A and 1701. 18 bighas was taken in Category B and the owners of the lands were paid compensation accordingly. As stated, the basis for placing of lands measuring 1701. 18 bighas of land out of the acquired lands, in the Category B was that the same consisted of Bhatta (Brick Kiln), which included Bhatha Grunds, gadhas upto 3 feet from which earth had been taken for making bricks. The claimants were dissatisfied from the award of the Collector and preferred petitions under section 18 of the Act. In the case of Chajju Ram vs. Union of India and another, LAC No. 35/2001, the learned Reference Court vide its judgment enhanced the compensation payable to the claimants while maintaining the categorisation of the lands and awarded the compensation @ Rs. 2,41,452/- per bigha for Block A lands and @ Rs. 2,01,452/- per bigha for Block B lands. While deciding this case, the Reference Court had also relied upon the judgment of the High Court in the case of Jai Lal (dead) through LRs vs. Union of India 2002 (62) DRJ 227. Against this judgment of the Reference Court, the Union of India preferred appeals praying that the judgment of the Court be set aside as the compensation awarded to the claimants was unreasonably high while the claimants preferred appeals against the same judgment praying for a further enhancement of the compensation awarded to them. Both these appeals were disposed of by a judgment of this Court in the case of Chajju Ram (D) through LRs vs. Union of India and ors. RFA No. 522/2002, decided on 20. 11. 2003 whereby judgment of the Reference court was set aside by the High Court and the case was remanded to the Reference court with the following observations and directions:-"before us it was submitted that the claimants have not led any evidence with regard to yield. Land which was sought to be acquired was agricultural land and the yield has a bearing on determining the amount of compensation. It is also required to be noted that over and above the yield, there are other aspects which are required to be taken into consideration. On behalf of the claimants strong reliance was placed on the judgment of Division Bench in the case of Jai lal (dead) through L. Rs vs. Union of India reported in 2002 (62) DRJ 227. As against that on behalf of the Union of India reliance was placed on a subsequent judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court on February 7, 2003 in rfa 464/88 entitled Union of India vs. Amar Singh wherein the B
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
