BHARAT SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The land of the appellants measuring about 1900 sq.yds comprised in Khasra Nos. 619/380, 616/376/2 and 616/376/2 situated in the revenue estate of Chaukri Mubarakabad, Delhi, was acquired through notifications dated 18.9.1987 and 9.2.1988 issued under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") . The Land Acquisition Collector vide award No. 28/90, assessed the market value of the acquired land of the appellants @ Rs.200/- per sq.yds. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the Reference Court assessed the market value @ Rs. 2580/- per sq.yds. vide its judgment dated 27.1.1997 and awarded compensation to the appellants at the said rate besides other statutory benefits. Not contended even with the enhanced value of their land the appellants have approached this Court through this appeal.

(2.) Mr. Sumit Bansal, learned counsel representing the appellants has strenuously urged that the assessment of the market value of the acquired land of the petitioner even by the learned Additional District Judge is not correct as according to him the appellants are entitled to compensation at much higher rate. In support of his plea, Mr. Bansal has placed reliance upon the Supreme Court decision in Civil Appeal No. 1328/1997 arising out of SLP No. 10661/96 decided on 17.2.1997. In that case, the land of a certain Ram Lal Bansiwal of the same revenue estate was acquired vide a notification dated 27.7.1984. In that case, a Division Bench of this Court in RFA No. 131/1988 titled as Ram Lal Bansiwal Vs. Union of India had fixed the market value of the said land @ Rs. 2320/- per sq.yds. In SLP/appeal, the Apex Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 3,000/- per sq.yds. Mr. Bansal urged that since the land of the appellants had the similar potential as that of the land of Ram Lal Bansiwal, the appellants are entitled to compensation at the same rate, besides the escalation for a period of three years @12% p.a. On the other hand, Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned counsel representing the respondent/UOI has invited our attention to a later decision of the Division Bench of this Court in RFA No. 75/1994 titled as Nasir Ali Vs. Union of India decided on 25.9.1998. In that case, the land of Nasir Ali was acquired by the same notification dated 18.9.1987 for the same purpose and on a consideration of the relevant facts and circumstances of the case and after taking into account the Supreme Court decision in the case of Ram Lal Bansiwal (Supra), the court assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.3,000/- per sq.yds. The Court gave cogent reasons as to why the land of the appellant (Nasir Ali) could not be equated with the land of Ram Lal Bansiwal as a petrol pump was being run on the land of Ram Lal Bansiwal at the time of its acquisition and it was abutted on the main road and has an easy and advantageous access, while the land of the appellant (Nasir Ali) was not situated in such an advantageous position and had not the similar potential. The Court, therefore, determined the value of the land of the appellant to Rs.3,000/- per sq.yds meaning thereby that it declined to grant any escalation over and above Rs.3,000/- for the gap of three years period from 1984 to 1987.

(3.) Mr.Sumit Bansal has made a vehement plea before us that the land of the appellants is situated in the same advantageous position as the land of Ram Lal Bansiwal which was acquired in the year 1984 because appellants were running a business/industry of re-treading of tyres at the time of its acquisition for which they had obtained a licence from the Municipal Corporation. It is also stated that the land of the appellants cannot be equated with the land of Nasir Ali though acquired by the same notification because the land of Nasir Ali was locked between two Railway lines and has this grave disadvantage.