RISAL SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A land ad-measuring 248 bigha 5 biswas in the revenue estate of Village Bamnauli, Delhi, was acquired by the government for a public purpose namely 'Construction of 400 K.V. Sub Station for DESU.' In this regard, notification no. F-7(1)/84-L and B dated 9.1.1987 was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in furtherance to which a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 18.9.1987. After having followed the prescribed procedure, the Land Acquisition Collector made his award bearing no. 15/1989-90 on 12.9.1989 and awarded compensation at a uniform rate of Rs.12,000/- per bigha for the entire acquired lands in addition to other statutory benefits. Dissatisfied with the fair market price of the land as determined by the Land Acquisition Collector, the claimants filed references under Section 18 of the Act, which in turn were referred to the court of the learned Additional District Judge. Vide separate judgment dated 18.2.2002 (in LAA 303-311/2006), the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi rejected the reference and declined to give any enhancement in the awarded compensation to the claimants for acquisition of their lands. This judgment was challenged before the High Court in RFA No. 341/2002. During the pendency of this appeal, an application being CM No. 3370/2004 was filed by the claimants under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC') for allowing the appellants to produce additional evidence in support of their claims. This application was allowed and vide judgment and order dated 11.3.2004 the judgment of the Reference Court was set aside and the matter was remanded by the High Court to that court again for its trial in accordance with the law, and keeping in view the facts of the case the claimants were permitted to lead additional evidence.

(2.) After permitting the claimants to lead additional evidence, the Reference Court again vide its judgment and order dated 18.3.2006 rejected the reference petitions for enhancement and held that the claimants were not entitled to any enhancement of compensation. The correctness and legality of the judgment dated 18.3.2006 has been questioned by the claimants in the above mentioned appeals. It may be mentioned that all these appeals are against the judgments of the Reference Court, though dated different, but all denying the claim of the claimants for enhancement of the awarded compensation. As the judgments of the Reference Court are based upon common reasoning, we would also dispose of all the above mentioned appeals by a common judgment.

(3.) The learned Reference Court while primarily rejecting the evidence led by the claimants held that out of sale deeds produced by the claimants, two sale deeds related to the villages other than Bamnauli, while the third sale deed related to a small piece of land in the revenue estate of the village Bamnauli, and as such declined to consider the sale deeds produced by the claimants as relevant piece of evidence for determining the fair market value of the land. The Court also declined to give 12% increase as claimed by the claimants. Besides finding that the sale deeds could not be considered by the court, it also held that the land for which the sale deeds were produced had a better location and potential than the acquired lands. For this reason, the entire claim of the claimants was rejected.