The High Court dismissed appeals seeking enhancement of land acquisition compensation. The Court held that without evidence showing identical land potentiality in adjoining villages, the compensation rate fixed for one village could not be applied to the others.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
LA.APP.NOs. 472-476, 488-91, 492-495,496-501, 541-44, 545-51 of 2005 and 1267 of 2008 Page 1 of 7
$ UOI AND ANOTHER …Respondents ^ Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar , Advocate for UOI/Respondent No. 1 WITH + LA.APP. NO. 496-501 OF 2005 # DESH RAM & ORS. ...Appellant Through : Mr. Deepak Khosla, Advocate Versus $ UOI AND ANOTHER …Respondents ^ Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar , Advocate for UOI/Respondent No. 1 WITH + LA.APP. NO. 541-44 OF 2005 # SHEELA & ORS. ...Appellants ! Through : Mr. Deepak Khosla, Advocate Versus $ UOI AND ANOTHER …Respondents ^ Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar , Advocate for UOI/Respondent No. 1 WITH + LA.APP. NO. 545-51 OF 2005 # SATVIR SINGH & ORS. ...Appellants ! Through : Mr. Deepak Khosla, Advocate LA.APP.NOs. 472-476, 488-91, 492-495,496-501, 541-44, 545-51 of 2005 and 1267 of 2008 Page 2 of 7
Versus
$ UOI AND ANOTHER …Respondents
^ Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar , Advocate for UOI/Respondent No. 1
AND
SHRI CHAND(DECEASED) THR. LRs & ORS. ...Appellants ! Through : Mr. Deepak Kohosla & Mr.L.S. Rana, Advocates
Versus
$ UOI AND ANOTHER …Respondents ^ Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar , Advocate for UOI/Respondent No. 1
CORAM:
*** HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN**
JUDGMENT
P.K.BHASIN , J:
These appeals arise out of the judgments of the learned Reference
Court disposing different References made by the Land Acquisition
LA.APP.NOs. 472-476, 488-91, 492-495,496-501, 541-44, 545-51 of 2005 and 1267 of 2008 Page 3 of 7
Collector under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act(„the Act‟ in short) in respect of the lands belonging to the appellants in village Amberhai which were acquired vide Award No.13/1991-92 pursuant to the notifications dated 10/7/1990 and 24/8/90 under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Act. Since same points were involved in all the appeals they were heard together and now are being disposed of also together by this common judgment.
LA.APP.NOs. 472-476, 488-91, 492-495,496-501, 541-44, 545-51 of 2005 and 1267 of 2008 Page 4 of 7
of their lands taking into consideration the land rate fixed in respect of the
land in village Kakrola determined by this Court @ ` 1,20,500 per bigha vide judgment dated 23.10.2008 in a batch of appeals of village Kakrola, the lead case being “LAA No. 69/2007 “Ved Parkash Versus Union Of India”. Village Kakrola is claimed by the appellants to be adjoining, village Amberhai.
“16. After considering the arguments of counsels for the parties, I am convinced with the arguments addressed by counsel for Union of India and I am of the view that as Hon’ble High Court has already determined and fixed the market value of the land of village Amberhai which was acquired on the same date as in the present cases so market value of the land of village Kakrola fixed by my Ld. Predecessor will have to be ignored.
17. Counsel for the petitioners also referred to testimonies of PW1 and PW 2 and documents filed and proved on record and submitted that in case of Shri Tej Ram, Supra, the petitioners had failed to produce any evidence that is why Hon’ble High Court did not enhance the market value of the land of village Amberhai, whereas in the present cases, many evidence oral and documentary have been adduced and therefore, this Court should fix and determined the market value of village Amberhai more than the value of land fixed by Hon’ble High Court in case of Tej Ram, Supra.
18. I perused the testimonies of PW1 and PW2, Sale Deed Ex.P2 of village Bagrola, other sale deeds of village Kakrola and on perusal thereof, I am of the view that there is no convincing evidence on record which may justify the fixation of market value of the land over and above the market value of the land finally adjudicated upon by High Court of Delhi in case of Tej Ram, Supra, therefore, this argument of counsel for petitioners is no convincing.
19. In view of the reasons and discussions made herein above. It is held that Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has finally adjudicated upon that the
LA.APP.NOs. 472-476, 488-91, 492-495,496-501, 541-44, 545-51 of 2005 and 1267 of 2008 Page 5 of 7
appropriate and reasonable market value of the land in question was ` 96,875/- per bigha at the relevant time. This much of value of the land of village Amberhai has already been fixed and determined by Land Acquisition Collector. Therefore, it is held that claimants are not entitled for any enhancement of compensation and this issue is answered accordingly in favour of the respondents and against the claimants.”
LA.APP.NOs. 472-476, 488-91, 492-495,496-501, 541-44, 545-51 of 2005 and 1267 of 2008 Page 6 of 7
same cannot be the decisive factor for adopting the market value of the
land fixed in respect of one village for the other village also unless it is shown by the aggrieved land owners that situation and potentiality of the land in two different villages were the same, which, contended Mr. Poddar, in the present case the appellants had failed to establish.
Court had accepted in Tej Ram‟s case(supra).
be kept in other files.
AUGUST 01, 2011 sh
P.K. BHASIN,J
LA.APP.NOs. 472-476, 488-91, 492-495,496-501, 541-44, 545-51 of 2005 and 1267 of 2008 Page 7 of 7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the land rate fixed by the High Court in a previous reference for an adjoining village applies to the land in the current villages.
Whether the appellants adduced sufficient evidence to establish that the land in the villages has the same potentiality to justify enhancement of compensation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Om Prakash & Ors.
UOI
P.K. Bhasin
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
