UNION OF INDIA Vs. OM PRAKASH MALIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal was filed by the Union of India against the judgment dated 15th January, 2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi while deciding a reference petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. That reference came to be made at the instance of the land owner, the respondent no. 1 herein, whose land in village Mandavali, which was sought to be acquired vide notification dated 13 th November, 1959 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act followed by the notification dated 12th July, 1966 under Section 6. Award was made by the Land Acquisition Collector on 22nd December, 1982. The Reference Court disposed of the reference by the impugned judgment and gave some enhancement in the compensation to the land owner relying upon one judgment of this Court in RFA No. 311/74, "Keshav Dass Vs. Union of India. While awarding enhanced compensation the Reference Court also ordered payment of solatium @ 30% on the market value of the acquired land and interest @ 9% p.a. for the first year on the market value from the date of taking possession and thereafter @ 15% p.a. till the date of payment of enhanced compensation gave interest @ 6% p.a. under Section 4(3) of the Land Acquisition(Amendment and Validation) Act, 1967 for the period of three years from the date of notification under Section 4 to the date of tender of compensation awarded by the Court, which was to be over and above the interest payable under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act.

(2.) Though the appellant Union of India had challenged the entire judgment of the Reference Court but during the course of hearing of this appeal its counsel Mr. Sanjay Poddar restricted the challenge only to the extent it has been observed by the trial Court that the interest under Section 4 of the Act of 1967 would be payable upto the date of tender of compensation awarded by the `Court' in view of the fact that the compensation in respect of village Mandavali had been fixed in accordance with the decision of this Court in Keshav Dass' case and which has attained finality. Learned counsel submitted that the word `Court' appears to have been written by mistake only and, in fact, it should have been `Collector'. In support of this submission Mr. Poddar has cited one decision of this Court in "Mani Dass Sharma & Ors. Vs. Union of India" reported as 19 (2001) DLT 673 and one unreported order of a Division Bench of this Court dated 18th March, 2004 in RFA 248/2000. In the former judgment the Division Bench had clearly held that the interest under Section 4 of the Act of 1967 was payable upto the date of tender of the compensation amount by the `Collector' while in the other order cited by Mr. Poddar the word `Court' mentioned in the judgment under challenge in that case also was substituted with the word `Collector'.

(3.) This submission made on behalf of the appellant appears to be justified and the concluding paragraph of the impugned judgment, therefore, is modified to the extent that the relief of interest awarded under Section 4 of the Act of 1967 shall be upto the date of tender of compensation awarded by the Collector and rest of the judgment of the Reference Court shall remain as it is. This appeal stands disposed of accordingly.