AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Leila Seth, J.
(1) MR.VOBRA is challenging only two of the findings of the Additional District Judge, Delhi. He says that he is not challenging the determination of compensation but contends that the appellants land should have been indicated in Block A as it is abutting on the Delhi Kanjhwala Road; further the land is shown as "Banjar Kadim " Therefore it is not "dug up".
(2) The learned Additional District Judge by his order dated 8th February, 1984 has determined the market value of the land as follows :
"Block A: Land on Delhi-Kanjhawala Road Rs. 6000.00 p. bigha Land on rasta Rs. 5500.00 " " Land neither on road nor on rasta Rs. 5000.00 " " Block B: Land Dug up but situated on rasta Rs. 4800.00 " " Land Dug up not on rasta Rs. 4700.00 " "
(3) Therefore, it is apparent that the compensation for land in Block A is Rs. 6000.00 per bigha, if the land is on the Delhi Kanjhawala Road. But the Additional District Judge did not award this compensation to the appellants as he opined that the appellants had not proved that their land is "on pacca road coming from Delhi".
(4) The question of proof by the appellants in the present case docs not appear to have been necessary as the Aks Shajra itself shows that the appellants land is abutting the said road. From a perusal of the map, it is clear that Field No. 2160/764 is a somewhat triangular plot and is abutting the road coming from Delhi. Consequently, the finding of the Additional District Judge is erroneous.
(5) The other finding of the Additional District Judge that the land is dug up and is so recorded in the Section 19 statement also appears to be incorrect.
(6) We have been taken through the Section 19 statement as also the award. The award indicates Khasra No. 2160/764 as "Banjar Kadim" comprising of 11 Bighas 6 bids was We have perused the award and find that various classifications have been indicated therein and in some cases the land is shown as "Semi Gadha" or "Gadha" whereas Khasra No. 2160/764 has been shown as Banjar Kadim only. It would Therefore appear to us that the additional District Judge was wrong in coming to the conclusion that the land was dug up and was not on the puce road coming from Delhi. We are there fore, of the view that the appellants land has to be held to be in Block ''A'' and not dug up and consequently they are entitled to Rs. 6000.00 per bigha. Whatever has been already paid shall be deducted,
(7) The notification u/s 4 in this case is dated 24th October 1961. The declaration u/s 6 is dated 11th January 1967. award is dated 25th April, 1980 and the judgment of the Additional District Judge is dated 8th February, 1984.
(8) In view of Section 30(2) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 1984 the appellants are entitled to a solarium of 30 per cent on the market value of the land as determined in the appeal. The appellants are also entitled to interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date on which the Collector took possession of the land till the date of payment of such excess part in to court provided that if that period is more than one year the state of interest shall be 15 per cent per annum from the date of expiry of one year on the amount of such excess part from what has not been paid into court before the date of such expiry.
(9) We order accordingly. We further order that the appellants be given interest at the rate of six per cent per annum on the market value of the land u/s 4(3)- of the Land Acquisition (Amendment & Validation) Act, 1967 provided that there is no over-lapping in the payment of interest u/s 21 and Section 4(3) of the Amendment Act. They will also be entitled to proportionate costs.