AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Madan B. Lokur, J.—The Appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 15th March, 1979 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in R.F.A.No. 169 of 1975. By the impugned order, the learned Judge declined to enhance the compensation awarded to the appellant by the learned Additional District Judge.
A notification dated 24th October, 1961 was issued u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) intending to acquire land belonging to the Appellant situated in a trans-Yamuna colony knows as Dilshad Garden. On 26th October, 1968, a declaration was issued u/s 6 of the Act acquiring the land in question. In subsequent proceedings, the Land Acquisition Collector passed an Award being Award No.8/69. On a reference u/s 18 of the Act, the learned Additional District Judge by his judgment dated 11th February, 1975 allowed an increase over the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. He held that there were six categories of land and the compensation awarded for each category was as follows:--
Residential: Rs.12,000/- per bigha Rs.12,000/- per bighas Commercial: Rs.13,000/- per bigha Rs.16,000/- per bigha Rs.17,000/- per bigha Cinema: Rs.30,000/- per bigha
The difference in the amounts awarded depended upon the size of the plots acquired.
The Appellant then preferred R.F.A.No.169 of 1975 for further enhancement of the compensation which as mentioned earlier, was declined by a learned Single Judge of this Court.
Learned counsel for the Appellant has brought to our notice that the dispute regarding the amount of compensation to be awarded is now no longer rest integra.
the first such decision pertaining to the same notification and the same Award appears to have been rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Union of India v. Justice Shamsher Bahadur.(1974) 2 Delhi 565. For a residential plot of land, the Division Bench enhanced the compensation from Rs.12,000/- per bigha awarded by the learned Additional District Judge to Rs.16,000/- per bigha.
This decision was subsequently followed by another Division Bench in Maya Devi (Deceased) through LRs. v. Union of India & Anr., R.F.A.No.10 of 1975 decided on 16th December, 1999.
Thereafter, the same view was adhered to in Raj Kumar v. Union of India. R.F.A.No.462 of 1985 decided on 24th August, 2000.
Following these decisions rendered by various Division Benches of this Court, there is no option but to hold that for residential plot the Appellant is entitled to an amount of Rs. 16,000/- per bigha instead of the amount of Rs. 12,000/- per bigha awarded by the learned Additional District Judges. There will also, necessarily, have to be a proportionate increase in respect of the other categories of land. This will now be as under:-
Residential: Rs.16,000/- per bigha instead of Rs.12,000/- Rs.17,000/- per bighas instead of Rs.13,000/- Commercial: Rs.17,000/- per bigha instead of Rs.13,000/- Rs.20,000/- per bigha instead of Rs.16,000/- Rs.21,000/- per bigha instead of Rs.17,000/-
The learned Single Judge was of the view that so far as the cinema was concerned, the learned Additional District Judge was justified in doubling the amount of compensation as awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. We find that the Land Acquisition Collector had himself granted a little more than doubled the residential rate of for the cinema. Following this basis, the Appellant would be entitled to a little more than double the residential rate per bigha as now determined by us. Consequently, the Appellant would be entitled to an amount between Rs.32,000/- per bigha and Rs.34,000/- per bigha. Taking the man of these two figures, we determined the compensation to be Rs.33,000/- per bigha for the cinema.
Accordingly, we allow the appeal with proportionate costs and hold that the Appellant is entitled to compensation as determined by us as above. Over and above the amount of compensation, the Appellant will be entitled to interest and solarium as per the decision of the learned Additional District Judge.