GANGA DASS DEAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants/appiicants are seeking review of the judgment of this Court delivered on 5/4/1984 in RFA No.167/69.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the appellants land admeasuring about 470 bighas situate within the revenue estate of village Wazirpur, Delhi was notified for being acquired at public expense for public purpose through notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on 2/3/1957 3/3/1957. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued, on 29/3/1961 for which Collector Land Acquisition made his award No.1231 on 2/12/1961. Another declaration was made on 18/4/1962 for which Collector Land Acquisition made his award No.1399. In this case we are concerned with only the land, which is the subject matter or declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act on 29/3/1961 for which award No.1231 was made on 2/12/1961.

(3.) While offering amount of compensation, Collector divided the land in three categories valuing land at the rate of Rs.1750.00 Rs.1700.00 and Rs.l500.00 per bigha respectively. Feeling dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, claimant's sought reference. Reference Court by his award dated 20/11/1968 enhanced the amount of compensation holding that the fair market value of land situate at village Wazirpur as on 2/9/1957 was Rs.2,250.00 per bigha irrespective of its categorisation. Still feeling dissatisfied, the claimants filed appeal in this Court for further enhancement in the amount of compensation (RFA 167/89). The appeal was decided on 5/4/1984 with the observations that the appeal is fully covered by Judgment separately delivered in RFA 134/69 (Jagat Ram V. Union of India) decided on 14/2/1980. For the reasons recorded in the judgment in Jagat Ram's case (supra) the c1aimants/appellants were also held entitled to enhancement of Rs.1,000.00 per bigha over and above the amount of compensation determined by Additional District Judge. Feeling dissatisfied the claimants approached Supreme Court by filing S.L.P.(C) No.10776 and 12320 of 1984. During pendency of the Special Leave Petitions the claimants/appellants raised an additional ground that for the land covered by the same notification, the High Court in another case had allowed compensation at higher rate. Taking note of this additional ground, Supreme Court on 5/4/1984 disposed of the Special Leave Petition reserving liberty to the appellants to apply to the High Court for higher amount of; compensation observing that the High Court would be free to make its own decisions after hearing the parties. The order reads:-