UOI Vs. ARJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The twin grounds upon which impugned of 26th August, 2006 is assailed by learned counsel for Appellant in this appeal are that enhanced compensation granted is much more than claimed and the interest has been granted from November, 1966 up to August, 1995 although reference proceeding had to be adjourned sine die Because respondent could not be served in the reference proceeding as they were not found at the given address. Award No. 1673 in questions is of the year 1964 in respect of Compulsory acquisition of land in Village-Tuglakabad, Delhi in proceeding under the land Acquisition Act. Learned for appellant maintains that prior to amendment of Section 25 of land Acquisition Act. In the year 1984 there was embargo upon grant of Compensation more than one claimed. Attention of his Court is drawn to Unamended Section 25 of the land Acquisition Act. Which read as under:-

(2.) It was pointed out by learned counsel for appellant that respondents-claimants in their claim petition under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act. Had claimed compensation of not less than 10 Rep. Sq. yard and Since they had not sought any amendment of Claim petition to Seek higher compensation, therefore, they could not have been awarded Compensation @ R. 35.60 paisa per Sq. i.e. @ R. 35.600/- per Bigha. To Seek denial of interest for the period the reference petition remained adjourned since die, as whereabouts of respondent/Claimants Could not be know, attention of this Court has been drawn to order of 31st August, 1995 of the Reference Court to point out that the reference petition was revived Subjects to Consideration of question of payment of interest for the period proceeding remained adjourned sine die at the Final hearing but this aspect was not be considered while passing the impugned judgment and so, it deserves to be modified to deny the interest to respondents claimants for the period the reference proceeding remained in abeyance.

(3.) To controvert the afore the noted stand of appellants' counsel learned Counsel for responded/claimants relies upon decision in Union of India Vs. Shaukat Rai (Deceased) through LRs & Anr., 2009 10 AD(Del) 139 : Delhi Development Authority Vs. Land Acquisition Collector & ors., 2010 4 AD(Del) 201; & Om Prakash Vs. State of Haryana & Ors, 2011 4 AD(SC) 383 & Ambya Kalya Mhatre (d) Through legal heirs & ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra no to contend that the Finding returned in the impugned Judgment of Notices under Section 9 & 10 of Land Acquisition act Being not served upon the Claimants, is official witness-AW-2 and so far as reference Petition is concerned the rigor of Sub-Section 2 of unamended Section 25 of Land Acquisition Act, does not apply, as the reference petition is under Section 18 of Acquisition Act. which Please no such embargo. Regarding denial of interest for the period proceedings remained adjourned sine is Concerned it is asserted by learned counsel for the contesting respondents that unwarranted because if Claimants are not found at the given address, then they have to be served by substituted service and such a course was not adopted thus, dismissal of this appeal is sought.