UOI Vs. PRATAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal was filed by Union of India against the judgment and decree dated 22nd February, 2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in Land Acquisition case no. 76/1991 whereby the compensation in respect of the land of the respondents no. 1 to 4 in village Dallupura acquired by the Government pursuant to the notifications dated 17th November, 1980 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and 29th September, 1981 under Section 6 of the said Act vide award no. 79/1982-83 of the Land Acquisition Collector was enhanced from RS. 12,500 per bigha awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector toRS. 3,45,000 per bigha.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that the Reference Court while fixing the market value of the acquired land of the respondents nos. 1 to 4 atRS. 3,45,000 per bigha had relied upon two decisions of this Court in "Anil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India", 86 (2001) Delhi Law Times 825 and the other one is unreported one in RFA No. 338/94 "Rattan Lal vs. UOI" decided on 24-08-2001 wherein this Court had fixed the market value of lands in villages Kondli and Dallupura respectively atRS. 3,45,000 per bigha. Many cases were disposed of by this Court by these two judgments in which Delhi Development Authority was one of the parties as the beneficiary of the acquisition of lands in these two villages. Mr. Poddar further submitted that the Delhi Development Authority as well as Union of India challenged both these decisions of this Court before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the judgments of this Court in both the cases were set aside vide judgment dated 3rd August, 2004 rendered in the lead case of "Delhi Development Authority Vs. Bali Ram Sharma and Others" reported as (2004) 6 Supreme Court Cases 533. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while setting aside the fixation of market value of lands in villages Kondli and Dallupura atRS. 3,45,000 per bigha reduced the same toRS. 76,550 per bigha relying upon its earlier decision in "Karan Singh Vs. Union of India", (1997) 8 SCC 186. In view of the said judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondents were not entitled to get compensation in respect of their land at a rate higher thanRS. 76,550 per bigha and therefore, the present appeal deserves to be allowed.