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