MOHAMMAD SADDIQ Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", is against the judgment of Shri G.R. Luthra, the then Additional District Judge, Delhi in land acquisition case No. 11368 answering a reference under Section 18 of the Act on the question of determination of the amount of compensation and the extent of area act. jnired. Plots No. 63 to 67, situated within the Revenue Estate of Bhargarh, by the side of Roshnara Road, Delhi were acquired for public purpose, namely, for childrens park through notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 25th January, 1955. Collector, Land Acquisition in his award No.1171 dated 25th July, 1961 offered the amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 20.00 per sq.yard as against Rs. 150.00 per sq.yard, claimed by the appellant. Award also clarified the area of plots 62 to 72, belonging to the appellant, to be 1024.6 sq.yards as against 1100 sq.yards claimed by the appellant. Feeling dissatisfied a reference was sought by the appellant. The Reference Court through the impugned award held the area of the acquired property belonging to the appellant to be the same, as determined by the Collector, Land Acquisition, namely, 1024.6 sq. yards but enhanced the amount of compensation holding the appellant be entitled to market value at the rate of Rs. 40.00 per sq.yard. The appeal is for further enhancememt of compensation and also on the area of the acquired plots.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that there was considerable evidence on record to justify a conclusion that the area of land acquired belonging to the appellant, was 1100 sq. yards and not 1024.6 sq.yards. On the question of quantum of compensation much stress was laid by learned Counsel on the decision of this Court in RFA.No.l4-D/58, decided on 21st February, 1967, titled as Shiekh Mohd. Siddiq v. Union of India, (copy Ext.A.14) and sale deed Ext. A. 10 dated 14th December, 1955. It was contended that the Reference Court though made Ext.A.14 to be the basis in determining the amount of compensation, errered in reducing the amount on irrelevant considerations. Learned Counsel for the respondent has tried to support the award contending that there is no scope for interfering in the well reasoned award of the Reference Court, which is based on evidence on record.

(3.) We have been taken through the entire material on record. We may not refer to the either evidence which was produced on record by the appellant on the question of determination of the amount of compensation except for making reference to the two instances on which reliance was placed during the course of arguments. Though in Reference Court considerable evidence was adduced by producing numerous instances of transactions of different localities but we are satisfied that the Reference Court was justified in ignoring the same on the ground that sufficient evidence was not on record as regards comparision of the acquired land with the properties which were the subject matter of the instance which had been given.