DELHI SIMLA CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals have been filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquigition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') against the judgment dated July 31, 1968, of the learned Additional District Judge, on a reference under Section 18 of the Act against two awards Nos. 1238 and 1369 of the Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi, respecting acquisition of land of the appellant in village Jogabai. Quite a large track of land was acquired of this village under Notification dated November 13, 1959 under Section 4 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector divided the acquired land in two blocks - Block A and Block B. He fixed market value of the land falling in Block A at Rs. 4,000.00 per bigha and that falling in Block B at Rs. 2.500.00 per bigha. The land of the appellant in both the awards falls in Block A. The learned Additional District Judge fixed the Market value of the land in Block A at Rs. 8,OCO.00 per bigha. Of course, the appellant was awarded solatium at the rate of 15/o and interest at the of 6% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of possession of the land till the payment of the said compensation. Dissatisfied even with that the appellant has filed these two appeals now claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 15,000.00 per bigha, thus seeking enhancement of Rs. 7,000.00 per bigha with usual solatium and interest at the statutory rate. These appeals are pending since the year 1968. Then the appellant filed applications on January 16, 1991, under Sections 149 and 153 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in these the appellant mentioned that though originally it had claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 30.00 per sq. yd. but in the reference petition under Section 18 of the Act it had claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 25,000.00 per bigha slating it to be the market value of the land. In the appeals, however, the appellant claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 15000.00 per bigha only. This was on the basis of the location and potentiality of the acquired land of the appellant vis-a-vis the evidence relied upon by the learned Additional District Judge. Appellant says that in the year 1968 there was no judgment fixing the market value of the land of the village in question or of the adjoining village Bahapur. Then the appellant sets out in the application that in two appeals this Court had fixed the market value of the land in village Bahapur at the rate of Rs. 19,000.00 per bigha and in another case this Court had held that the market value of the land of the adjoining village was relevant which fact the appellant says was not considered by the learned Additional District Judge. The appellant also points out that in the case of Bagh Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, MR 1985 S.C. 1576, the Supreme Court has held that when the market value of the lands acquired have been valued at the rates higher than the rates claimed by an appellant, the appellant should be given the opportunity of paying the deficient Court fee so that it can also get enhanced compensation at the same rates as the others. In these circumstances the appellant says that the market value of the subject land would be over Rs. 20,000.00 per bigha and it erroneously claimed the compensation only at the rate of Rs. 15,000.00 per bigha. The appellant, therefore, sought permission to amend the grounds of appeal claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 20,000.00 per bigha, enhancement of Rs. 12.000.00 per bigha on what the Additional District Judge awarded. The Court directed issue of notices to the Union of India in these applications. None appeared for the Union of India and the Court directed that since the main appeal itself was on board the applications will beheard along with the appeal itself. These applications were, however, allowed by subsequent order dated April 16, 1991, as there was no opposition to the same by the respondent Union of India. Court fee on the enhanced amount now claimed has since been paid.

(2.) Mr. Radhakrishnan, learned Counsel for the Union of India, raised two preliminary objections on the basis of the impugned judgment: (1) that the appellant relied only on five documents (Ext. A-1, A-2, A-3, A-10 and A-12) and on no other document, and (2) that the appellant had limited its claim of market value of the acquired land at Rs. 9,000.00 or Rs. 10,000.00 per bigha and no more. He, therefore, said that the appellant now cannot rely on any other document or take a different stand to contend that the market value of the land would be more than Rs. 10,000.00 per bigha. It is correct that if reference is made to the impugned judgment what Mr. Radhakrishnan says may appear to be correct from the first reading of the judgment but relying mainly on certain documents and then on that basis saying that in any case the market value should not be less than Rs. 9,000.00 or Rs. 10,000.00 per bigha. it cannot be said that the appellant gave up its claim for higher amount. In fact in the grounds of appeal the appellant has clearly stated that it at no stage gave any concession. Under Section 23 of the Act in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired the Court shall take into consideration, among other things, the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. It becomes the duty of the Court to fix the market value of the land though the Court can arrive at this conclusion only on the basis of the evidence on record and if that evidence suggests that market value would be more than what even the claimant would say, the Court should nevertheless fix the market value on the basis of the evidence on record. We do not find any force in this preliminary submission of the Union of India and would reject the same.

(3.) The notification in the present case in both the appeals is same and is dated November 13, 1959. Declaration under Section 6 in R.F.A. 454/68 was made on 21st^22nd May, 1962 and in R.F.A. 455/68 on 26/27th July, 1961. Two awards' were also given on different dates but fixing the market value of the acquired land at the same rate. As noted above, only relevant consideration in this case under Section 23 of the Act would be the market value of the acquired land as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Section 24 enumerates the matters which are to be neglected in determining compensation and one of such matters is any increase to the value of the land acquired likely to accrue from the use to which it would be when acquired.