VIMAL KUMAR SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . With the consent of the parties, appeal has been taken up today for hearing.

(2.) . Appellant's land situate in village Pul Pehlad, Mehrauli, New Delhi was acquired pursuant to Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') dated 23.1.1965. Declaration was made under Section 6 of the Act on 13.1.1969. The Collector, Land Acquisition made his Award No. 63/82-83 on 31.1.1983 and offered compensation @ Rs. 4.000/- per bigha. Feeling dissatisfied, reference petition seeking determination of the amount of compensation was filed. Reference was forwarded to the Court. By the impugned award datedl.9.1994, the Reference Court assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 9,000/- per bigha. Still, feeling dissatisfied, this appeal has been preferred claiming that the market value ought to have been assessed at Rs. 50,000 / - per bigha.

(3.) . Our attention has been drawn to the decision of this Court in Hamdard Dawakhana (WAQF) v. Union of India, RFA No. 438/1979 decided on 27.9.2001. By the said decision, fair market value of the land situate within the same village Pul Pehlad was assessed @ Rs. 40,000 /- per bigha, which was also acquired by the same Notification dated 23.1.1965 for the same public purpose. Declaration was also made on the same date. However the Collector, Land Acquisition in the said case had made separate Award No. 77/1970-71 and had offered compensation @ Rs. 2,300/- per bigha whereas in the instant case in his award made on a later date higher compensation was offered to the appellant. As regards potentiality for the land for being utilised for construction purposes, there is ample evidence on record. Appellants land was offered higher compensation since it was better located vis-a- vis the land in Hamdard Dawakhana (Waqf)'s case. As such the appellant is claiming higher amount than assessed by the decision in Hamdard Dawakhana (Waqf)'s case. However we are of the view that in the matter of payment of compensation when land situate within the same revenue estate and was acquired under the same notification for same public purpose, there should be parity in payment of compensation. There is not much difference in the situation and location of both the lands. As such, we hold that the appellants are not entitled to compensation at a higher rate than the one at which it was assessed in Hamdard Dawakhana (Waqf) 's case (supra).