The court affirmed that cumulative increases in compensation should be calculated based on market value assessments, rejecting flat rate increases to ensure just compensation for acquired land.

JUDGMENT :

LA.APP. 331/2007, CM APPL. 13369/2011

LA.APP. 333/2007, CM APPL. 13370/2011

1. The present appeals have been preferred under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as ‘LA Act’), which pertain to proceedings undertaken in the village of Tughlakabad, New Delhi, commenced vide notification No.F7(34)/90-L&B/LA dated 02.04.1996 under Section 4 of the LA Act (hereby referred to as ‘acquisition notification’) for the creation of wildlife sanctuary under ‘Planned Development of Delhi’, followed by a declaration dated 06.05.1996 under Section 6 of the LA Act.

2. On 05.12.1997, the Land Acquisition Collector, vide award No. 01/1997-98, awarded compensation for the acquired land @ Rs.1,23,000/- per bigha to Phire Ram and Sh. Jai Chand (deceased), respondents No.1 in LA.APP. 331/2007 and LA.APP. 333/2007 respectively. Aggrieved by the said compensation amount, the aforesaid respondents filed Reference petitions under section 18 of the LA Act. Vide impugned judgements dated 10.07.2006 in LAC No. 29/1/06 in the case of Phire Ram and LAC No. 27/1/06 in the case of Jai Chand, the Reference Court enhanced the compensation payable to the said respondents to Rs.4,180/- per sq. yard, along with other statutory benefits and, while doing so, the reference Court relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 30.03.2001 passed in RFA No. 461/1995 titled as Hari Chand v. Union of India .

3 The primary ground on which the present appeals were filed was that the decision in Hari Chand (supra) was based on an earlier decision of another Division Bench of this Court in based on the decision dated 21.08.1998, in Bhola Nath Sharma Vs. Union of India , passed by the Division Bench of this Court in RFA No. 65/81. Concededly, the present appeals came to be filed singularly on the ground that since the challenge to Bhola Nath (Supra) was pending before the Supreme Court, the Reference Court ought not to have relied on Hari Chand (supra).

4. However, much water has flown under the bridge since then. The Supreme Court, in the challenge to decision of Division Bench in Bhola Nath (Supra), had remitted the matter back to the Reference Court as in the enhancement proceedings before the Reference Court, the beneficiary i.e., DDA was not impleaded. On remand back, while the Reference Court enhanced the compensation, the Co-ordinate bench of this Court vide decision dated 23.03.2016 in LA APP. 109/2013 arrived at a market value of the acquired land at Rs. 2,000/- per square yard, which is the same as that decided by the Division Bench in Bhola Nath Sharma (Supra). The decision dated 23.03.2016 was also challenged before the Supreme Court in SLP No. (C) No.19123/2016 which was dismissed vide order dated 06.04.2017 and thereafter the review petition bearing Review Petition (C) No. 1588/2017 was also dismissed on 09.08.2017. Resultantly, the compensation ascertained by this Court in Bhola Nath (Supra) has attained finality.

5. Notably, vide order dated 21.03.2024, with the consent of the parties, the issue in the captioned appeals stands confined to the aspect of enhancement to be granted annually to the respondents herein. The Reference Court has granted enhancement @ 10% p.a. cross objections have been filed by respondent No.1 in LA.APP. 331/2007 and the Legal representatives of respondent No.1 in LA.APP. 333/2007.

6. Mr. Yadav, learned Senior Counsel for the answering respondents, submits that the respondents in the cross objections are claiming enhancement in compensation @ Rs.550/- per square yard, over and above the comp