KAILASH CHAND BANSAL Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The land of the appellant comprised in Khasra No. 42/2/2 (2-18), village Singhola was notified under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act vide notification dated 14.01.1994. This was followed by a declaration dated 16.12.1994, issued under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act. Vide award No. 9/96-97, the market value of the acquired land was fixed at Rs 96,875/- per bigha. Since the appellant was not satisfied with the compensation awarded to him by the Collector, he sought a reference to the District Judge under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. On such reference being made, the learned Additional District Judge vide order dated 22.09.2001 enhanced the compensation by Rs 43,355/- per bigha and also held that the appellant would be entitled to take additional amount under Section 23 (1-A) of Land Acquisition Act at the rate of 12% per annum on the market value from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act till the date of award or dispossession whichever was earlier and will further be entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% per annum at the market value along with interest under Section 28 of the Act at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year from the date of dispossession and at the rate of 15% per annum for the subsequent period till the date of payment of the difference between the enhanced compensation awarded by him as well as on the compensation awarded by Land Acquisition Collector. Being aggrieved from the judgment of the learned Additional Judge, the appellant is before us by way of this appeal, seeking enhancement of the compensation.

(2.) In Hukum Singh And Ors. vs Union Of India, 2004 111 DLT 95, the land of the appellant in that case, situated in village Singhola was notified under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act on 14.01.1994 followed by declaration dated 16.12.1994, issued under Section 6 of the said Act. The compensation was fixed vide award No. 9/96-97. The appellants in that case, filed a reference petition under Section 18 of the Act and sought compensation at the rate of 50 lakhs per acre. A Division Bench of this Court, after examining the evidence and considering the matter, came to the conclusion that the learned Additional District Judge had rightly fixed the market value of the land at the rate of Rs.1,40,230/- on the basis of the judgment EX.A-1, along with statutory benefits. The appeal was, therefore, dismissed.

(3.) Considering that the land of the appellant before this Court was notified vide the very same notification, which was the subject matter of appeal in the case of Hukum Singh and the compensation in that case also was fixed in terms of the award No. 9/96-97, there is no reasonable ground for taking a view different from the view taken by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hukum Singh , when there is no material before this Court to indicate that on account of its location or for some other valid reason such as land use etc. the land of the appellants before this Court carried a market value higher than the market value of the land of the Hukum Singh etc., the appellant in RFA No. 552/2002. Therefore, I find no merit in the appeal as the learned Additional District Judge has already fixed compensation at the very same rate of Rs.1,40,230/- per bigha by granting enhancement to the extent of Rs 43,355/- per bigha. He has also awarded further compensation in terms of Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act besides solatium at the prescribed rate.