RAM KISHAN Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the above appeals under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act are directed against the judgment of the reference court dated 5th August, 1999. The reference court declined to enhance the compensation payable to the claimants for acquisition of their lands and maintained the award of the Collector, however, with a direction to the Land Acquisition Collector that the solatium @ 30% would be calculated but he will not pay interest on the solatium in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Tehri Hydro Development Corpn. v. S.P. Singh and others (1997) 1 SCC 249 and Prem Nath Kapur and anr. v. National Fertilizers Corpn. of India Ltd. and others (1996) 2 SCC 71.

(2.) The appellants are the bhumidars of the lands measuring about 4 bighas 14 biswas forming part of khasra no. 118 and 6 bighas 6 biswas forming part of khasra no. 112/2 in the revenue estate of Village Chilla Saroda Khadar respectively. This land was acquired vide notification dated 17.11.1980 under Section 4 of the Act in furtherance to which the Land Acquisition Collector had made an award granting compensation @ Rs.8,000/- per bigha. The claimants being dis-satisfied from the Award of the Collector made references under Section 18 of the Act which in turn were referred to the court of the Additional District Judge, Delhi. As already noticed, the reference court declined to enhance the compensation resulting in filing of the present appeals.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the parties commonly relied upon the judgment of this court in the case of Sh. Jai Chand v. UOI (RFA 93/2000) decided on 18.12.2003 wherein a Division Bench of this court had held that the controversy in the present cases was covered by the judgment of the court in the case of Charanjit Singh Madan and others v. UOI (RFA 36/01) decided on 3.4.2003. In the case of Sh. Jai Chand, the Division Bench had specifically noticed that the land in that case was situated in the village Chilla Saroda Bangar while in the case of Charanjit Singh Madan, the land was situated in the village Kondli but still as the land of both the villages was adjacent to each other, the compensation awarded would be the same and the court granted the same compensation to the claimants in those cases.