RUPINDER HANDA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Additional District Judge dated 18/02/1972.The land in dispute comprised in khasra Nos. 132(2-1) and 285/133(7-19),situated in village Kaloo Sarai, Delhi was acquired by Delhi Administrationfor planned development of Delhi in pursuance of notification issued underSection 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 25/08/1962. Declarationunder Section 6 was issued on 5/10/1962 and consequently an awardwas given by the Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi on 31/12/1962.The Land Acquisition Collector fixed the market value of the land atRs. 4200.00 per bigha.

(2.) Aggrieved by the award of the Land Acquisition Collector theappellant filed a reference petition under Section 18 of the Act and the Additional District Judge by the impugned judgment fixed the market value of theland at Rs. 10,000.00 per bigha. According to the appellant, the marketvalue of the land was much higher on the date of the acquisition of the land.It is submitted that this Court in RFA No. 262/72, Bans Raj Bhalla v. Unionof India, fixed the market value of the land in respect of the same village atRs. 22.000.00 per bigha. In that case the notification under Section 4 wasissued on 3/08/1963 i.e. one year later. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that as per the settled principles the appellant is entitled toget compensation on the basis of the market value at Rs. 21,000.00 per bigha.Learned Counsel for the respondent, however, submitted that the appellanthas claimed compensation on the basis of the market value at the rate ofRs. l6,000.00 per bigha in the appeal and he should not be awarded anythingmore than what he has claimed in the appeal.

(3.) We find substantial force in the contention raised by the learnedCounsel for the appellant. It is a well-settled principle that this Court fixesmarket value of land in a particular village in respect of the notificationissued in a particular year. If the market value has to be fixed for a subsequent year or a previous year then the market value has to be assessed byawarding Rs. 1000.00 per bigha more or less. as the case may be. This Courthas followed this principle in a large number of cases and we see no reasonto deviate from this principle. We are, therefore, of the opinion that theappellant is entitled to get compensation at the market value at Rs. 21,000.00per bigha subject to the appellant making up the deficit Court feewithin two months. In additional to the compensation the appellantwill also be entitled to solatium at the rate of 15% and interest atthe rate of 6% per annum on Vie enhanced amount from the date of dispossession till payment. The appellant will also be entitled to proportionatecosts. The decree sheet be drawn up after the appellant makes up thedeficit Court fee.