UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAM MEHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole point for determination in this appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Delhi High Court relates to the true meaning and construction of the expression "market value" employed in Sec. 4 (3) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1967, hereinafter called the 'Amending Act'.

(2.) The facts may be briefly stated. By a notification dated October 24, 1961 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, hereinafter called the 'principal Act', certain land in the revenue estate of Shakurpur was sought to be acquired. The Land Acquisition Collector gave an award dated March 1, 1967 fixing compensation at the rate of Rupees 3500/- per Bigha. The respondents being dissatisfied with the award applied for a reference under Section 18 of the principal Act claiming enhancement in compensation. The Additional District Judge held that the market value of the land on the relevant date was Rupees 5,000/- per Bigha and the claimants were entitled to enhancement at the rate of 1500/- per Bigha. He also directed that interest should be awarded at 6% per annum on the market value of the land from October 24, 1964 till the date of tender of the payment of the amount awarded by the Collector. This was in view of Section 4 (3) of the Amending Act since the date of the notification under Section 6 of the Principal Act was August 16, 1966 which was more than three years from the date of the notification under Section 4 of the principal Act. He also awarded interest on the enhanced amount from the date of dispossession till the date of payment of the amount in Court. The Union of India filed an appeal to the Delhi High Court. No dispute was raised with regard to the interest awarded under S. 28 of the principal Act. The controversy was confined only to the question of interest under Section 4 (3) of the Amending Act. In view of a previous decision of the Delhi High Court in Union of India v. Nathu, R. F. A. 104 of 1968, D/- 21-12-1968 (Delhi) a learned single Judge dismissed the appeal.

(3.) Before us the correctness of the decision of the Division Bench mentioned above on the interpretation of Section 4 (3) of the Amending Act particularly with reference to the true meaning of the expression "market value" has been challenged.