RATAN LAL GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The application for substitution is allowed.

(2.) Notification under Section 4 (1 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1874 (for short 'the Act') acquiring, land admeasuring about 5.29 acres (. 28 bighas) comprised in Khasra Nos. 351/305/162 etc. situated in Yaquatpur, Delhi for the planned development (was published in the Union Gazette on 4/2/1964. The Collector in his award dated 26/5/1965 determined compensation at Rs. 5,000. 00 per bigha together with 15% solatium and interest 6%. The Additional District Judge by his award and decree dated 5/8/1969. determined the compensation at the rate of Rs. 30. 00 per sq. yard. On further appeal under Section 54 of the Act. the learned Single Judge determined market value at Rs. 78. 00 per sq. yard, deducted Rs. 7. 00 for development charges, fixed the land available as per the layout at78.45% of the land areas saleable for plots. The learned Judge further held that market value for undeveloped area was Rs. 23. 00 per sq. yard while for the developed area in Greater Kailash Part I, the market value came to Rs. 39.34 per sq. yard. On application of the average, the learned Judge fixed the market value at Rs. 40. 00 per sq. yard. On letters patent appeal, the division bench in the impugned judgment and decree dated 26/8/1981 dismissed the appeal. Thus this appeal by special leave.

(3.) Shri Mukul Mudgal. learned counsel appearing for the claimants, contended that the learned Single Judge having found that a sum of Rs. 7. 00 per sq. yard would be required for development charges of the saleable land of 78.45% as per the layout, committed an error of law in fixing average price of developed and undeveloped land at Rs. 40. 00 per sq. yard. Having determined the market value at Rs. 78. 00 per sq. yard and having deducted an amount towards development charges and also determined the saleable plots of land at 78.45% of the land, he committed an error of law for further reducing the market value. Thus the learned Single Judge has applied wrong principle of law warranting interference.