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.) HAVING considered the Submissions advanced, the record of this case and the decisions Cited, I find that the finding returned in the impugned judgment of notice under Sections 9 & 10 of Land Acquisition Act. being not served upon respondents/Claimants is well justified as it is borne out by the evidence of appellant's witness -AW -2 on record. So far the applicability of sub -Section 2 of unamended Section 25 of Land Acquisition Act is concerned a bare reading of unamended Section 25 of Land Acquisition Act makes it Clear that this provision has to be read cumulatively and Sub -Section 2 of unamended Section 25 of land Acquisition Act cannot be read out of context. That is to say, unamended Section 25 would only apply when Notice under Section 9 of Land Acquisition Act The negative consequences as provided in the unamended Section 25 of land Acquisition Act would get attracted only when it is shown that Notice under Section 9 of Land Acquisition Act has been served upon the claimants and not otherwise therefore in the considered opinion of This Court the bar of unamended Section 25 of land Acquisition Act would not apply. Thus on the afore notice first ground raised, this appeal fails.