DHANI RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The land of the appellants situated in the revenue estate of village Sabhapur was acquired by the Government for construction of "bund" vide Notification dated 3.5.1991 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, though its possession had been taken about 10 years prior to the issuance of the said notifications. The land Acquisition Collector based on the Delhi Government order dated 3.5.1990 and treating the land of the appellants as riverbed land assessed the market value of the acquired land @ 31,250/- per bigha with other usual benefits. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned Additional District Judge marginally enhanced the compensation by Rs.4687.50 per bigha by giving 15% escalation for a period of 1 year from the order of May 1990 and the issuance of the Notification in May 1991. In addition, the learned Additional District Judge also granted solatium @ 30% of the market value and interest @ 9% p.a. for the first year from the date of taking possession and thereafter @ 15% p.a. till the date of payment of excess amount. The appellants were also held to be entitled to additional amount @ 12% p.a. on the above market value from the date of Notification under Section 4 of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order the appellants have approached this Court in these appeals.

(2.) We have heard Mr. C. L. Verma, learned counsel representing the appellants and Mr. S. S. Dalal, learned counsel representing the respondent/UOI and have given our thoughtful consideration to their respective submissions.

(3.) Mr. C. L. Verma, Advocate, sought to assail the impugned order firstly on the ground that the Land Acquisition Collector and the Reference Court has erred in holding that the land of the appellants was river bed land within the meaning of Government order dated 3.5.1990 and consequently fixing the rate of agricultural land as the river bed land. Mr. Verma made a vain attempt to show that the land of the appellant was not a riverbed land and was an agricultural land. We are not prepared to accept this contention because the land of the appellants was acquired for the purpose of construction of 3rd forward bund at Yamuna river bed. This bund was constructed in order to reclaim some more river bed land from flood waters of Yamuna river. It is thus evident that the land of the appellants was not an agricultural land and it was a river bed land and, therefore, no fault can be found with the finding of the Land Acquisition Collector and the Reference Court at least on this score.