UNION OF INDIA Vs DHIRAJ (D) THRU LRS.
Bench: ASOK KUMAR GANGULY,SWATANTER KUMAR, , ,
Case number: C.A. No.-000788-000788 / 2006
Diary number: 11247 / 2002
Advocates: ANIL KATIYAR Vs
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.788 OF 2006
Union of India … Appellant
versus
Dhiraj (Dead) Through LRs. … Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi, passed on 7th December, 2000, in RFA
No.283 of 1995 where a Division Bench of the High Court partly
allowed the appeal, filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (for short, the ‘Act’), by the claimant (respondent herein).
While enhancing the compensation awarded to the claimant, the High
Court fixed it at ` 345/- per square yard. In addition to the enhanced
market value, the claimant was also held entitled to the solatium at
the rate of 30% and interest at the rate of 9% per annum for a period
of one year from the date of the Collector taking the possession and
1
thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till the date of payment. The
question of payment of interest on solatium was kept open subject to
the decision of this Court in the reference pending at that time.
2. The pertinent facts of the present case are that a Notification
under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 25th February, 1981
proposing to acquire considerable land situated in the Revenue
Estate of Village Kondli, including the land which is the subject matter
of the present appeal, for a public purpose, i.e. planned development
of Delhi and at public expense. Declaration under Section 6 of the
Act was made on 29th September, 1981. The Land Acquisition
Collector, after following the due procedure of law, passed an award
being award No.57/81-82 on 31st March, 1982 fixing the rate of
compensation at ` 3,000/- per bigha. Dissatisfied with the
compensation awarded, an application for reference under Section 18
of the Act was made to the Court of competent jurisdiction. The
Reference Court answered the reference partially in favour of the
claimants and fixed the market value of the acquired land at the rate
of ` 10,000/- per bigha for ab-pash land and ` 5,000/- per bigha for
gair-ab-pash land. Still dissatisfied with the compensation awarded,
the claimants preferred appeals before the High Court of Delhi. The
2
Division Bench of the High Court which disposed of the appeal under
consideration relied upon the judgment of another Division Bench of
that Court (Devinder Gupta, J. being member to both the Benches) in
the case of Anil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India [86 (2000) DLT 825]
and further enhanced the compensation payable to the claimants to
` 345/- per square yard with the benefits aforenoticed. The Union of
India felt aggrieved by this judgment of the High Court enhancing the
compensation granted to the claimants to the extent of ` 345/- per
square yard and had filed the present appeal before this Court.
3. The only contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that the
judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Anil Kumar Sharma
(supra) was set aside by this Court in the case of Delhi Development
Authority v. Bali Ram Sharma [(2004) 6 SCC 533] and the
compensation of ` 345/- per square yard granted by the High Court in
that case was reduced by this Court to ` 76,550/- per bigha and as
such the compensation granted by the High Court in the present case
is also liable to be reduced as being a case covered by the said
judgment.
3
4. We may notice that despite service, nobody had appeared on
behalf of the respondents and this appeal was heard in their absence.
5. If we are to accept the contention of the appellant it would be
essential to discuss the pertinent facts and background of the
judgment of this Court in Bali Ram Sharma’s case (supra). Two
notifications dated 17th November, 1980 and 25th February, 1981
were issued for acquisition of some land for public purpose. These
notifications resulted in passing of two awards, namely awards Nos.
80/82-83 and 57/81-82 respectively. Upon a reference made to the
Court of competent jurisdiction in relation to award No. 80/82-83, the
compensation was enhanced to ` 76,500/- per bigha by the
Reference Court. The correctness of the judgment of the Reference
Court was questioned before the High Court of Delhi. The High Court
disposed of the appeals in RFA Nos. 601, 603 and 604 of 1992 on
21st July, 2000 by a common judgment in Anil Kumar Sharma’s case
(supra) and enhanced the compensation to ` 345/- per square yard in
addition to the other statutory benefits. Appeal by the Delhi
Development Authority against this judgment of the High Court
arising out of RFA No.604 of 1992, came to be allowed by this Court
in Bali Ram Sharma’s case (supra) where compensation was 4
reduced to ` 76,550/- per bigha. Detailed reasons were recorded for
setting aside the judgment of the High Court. One of the main
reasons recorded was that the High Court had failed to notice the
judgment of this Court in the case of Karan Singh v. Union of India
[(1997) 8 SCC 186] wherein a part of the land was acquired under the
same notification.
6. As the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of this
Court in Bali Ram Sharma’s case (supra), we have no reasons to
take any contrary view. While adopting the reasoning given by this
Court in the cases of Karan Singh (supra) and Bali Ram Sharma
(supra) with respect, we set aside the judgment of the High Court
under appeal and partially allow the appeal filed by the Union of India
reducing the compensation payable to the claimants to ` 76,550/-
with 10% acceleration and other statutory benefits available to them
under law. We may also notice that this Court in the case of Sunder
v. Union of India [(2001) 7 SCC 211] has already held that the
claimants would be entitled to interest on solatium and as this
question was left open by the High Court, we also direct that the
claimants shall be entitled to claim interest on the amount of solatium
for the permissible period.
5
Accordingly, the appeal is partially allowed while leaving the
parties to bear their own costs.
…….………….............................J. (Asok Kumar Ganguly)
...….………….............................J. (Swatanter Kumar)
New Delhi April 19, 2011
6