SATYAWATI G MOHATTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for short 'the Act') is directed against judgment dated 17 April 1969 of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, on a reference made to him under section 18 of the Act. The appellants pray that the compensation of Rs.l6,388.00 awarded to them by the Land Acquisition Collector and upheld by the Additional District Judge, Delhi, be enhanced to Rs.65,000/.

(2.) Land of the appellants measuring 630 square yards at Malka Ganj, Subzi Mandi, Delhi, was acquired for the construction of the M.B. School of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. A notification under section 4 of the Act was issued on 11 April 1955 and declaration under section 6 was issued on 6 March 1961. The Land Acquisition Collector gave his award No. 1208 dated 12 October 1961 and fixed the market value of the land at Rs.26.00 per square yard. He further directed that out of the compensation so awarded, 25% of the same would be payable to the tenants who were in occupation of the land. The appellants being the owners felt dissatisfied with the award on two counts (1) the market value fixed by the Collector, and (2) his awarding 25% of the compensation to the tenants and subtenants, which according to the appellants they were not entitled to, and, therefore, sought a reference under section 18 of the Act. The claim of the appellants was contested both by the Union of India and the tenants and some of the sub- tenants. The tenants and sub-tenants urged that they were entitled to 50% of the compensation. Though these persons appeared at the initial stages of the reference, they stopped appearing subsequently. The Additional. District Judge, who heard the reference, framed the following issues :-

(3.) On issues 2 and 3, the Additional District Judge held that there was no justification for increasing the percentage of compensation to 50% as contended by the tenants and sub-tenants. He said that they were entitled to 25% of the compensation as awarded by the Collector. The Additional V District Judge, however, made it clear that in the present reference under section 18 of the Act the tenants or the sub-tenants were not entitled to anything out of the enhanced compensation, if any, because it was only a person who had sought the reference who was entitled to the enahancement. The Additional District Judge further held that he could go into the question of apportionment under a reference under section 18 of the Act and that it was not necessary to refer to section 31 of the Act.