UOI vs Arjan Singh

Sunil Gaur, J.—The twin grounds upon which impugned of 26th August, 2006 is assailed by learned counsel for Appellant in this appeal are that enhanced compensation granted is much more than claimed and the interest has been granted from November, 1966 up to August, 1995 although reference proceeding had to be adjourned sine die Because respondent could not be served in the reference proceeding as they were not found at the given address. Award No. 1673 in questions is of the year 1964 in respect of Compulsory acquisition of land in Village-Tuglakabad, Delhi in proceeding under the land Acquisition Act. Learned for appellant maintains that prior to amendment of Section 25 of land Acquisition Act. In the year 1984 there was embargo upon grant of Compensation more than one claimed. Attention of his Court is drawn to Unamended Section 25 of the land Acquisition Act. Which read as under:-

25(1) when the application has made a claim to completion pursuant to any notice given u/s 9. The amount awarded to him by the Court shall not Exceed the amount so claimed or to be less than the amount awarded by the collector u/s II.

(2) When the applicant has refused to make such Claim or has omitted without sufficient reason (to be allowed by the jungle) to make such claim the amount award by the Court shall in no case exceed the amount awarded by the Collector.

(3) When applicant has omitted for a Sufficient reason (to be allowed by the judge) to make such Claim the amount awarded to him by the court shall not be less than and, may exceed the amount awarded by the Collector.

It was pointed out by learned counsel for appellant that respondents-claimants in their claim petition u/s 18 of Land Acquisition Act. Had claimed compensation of not less than 10 Rep. Sq. yard and Since they had not sought any amendment of Claim petition to Seek higher compensation, therefore, they could not have been awarded Compensation @ R. 35.60 paisa per Sq. i.e. @ R. 35.600/- per Bigha. To Seek denial of interest for the period the reference petition remained adjourned since die, as whereabouts of respondent/Claimants Could not be know, attention of this Court has been drawn to order of 31st August, 1995 of the Reference Court to point out that the reference petition was revived Subjects to Consideration of question of payment of interest for the period proceeding remained adjourned sine die at the Final hearing but this aspect was not be considered while passing the impugned judgment and so, it deserves to be modified to deny the interest to respondents claimants for the period the reference proceeding remained in abeyance.

To controvert the afore the noted stand of appellants'' counsel learned Counsel for responded/claimants relies upon decision in Union of India (UOI) Vs. Shaukat Rai (D) through LRs. and Another, : Delhi Development Authority Vs. Land Acquisition Collector and Others, ; & Om Prakash Vs. State of Haryana, & Shri Ambya Kalya Mhatre (d) through legal heirs and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra, no to contend that the Finding returned in the impugned Judgment of Notices u/s 9 & 10 of Land Acquisition act Being not served upon the Claimants, is official witness-AW-2 and so far as reference Petition is concerned the rigor of Sub-Section 2 of unamended Section 25 of Land Acquisition Act, does not apply, as the reference petition is u/s 18 of Acquisition Act. which Please no such embargo. Regarding denial of interest for the period proceedings remained adjourned sine is Concerned it is asserted by learned counsel for the contesting respondents that unwarranted because if Claimants are not found at the given address, then they have to be served by substituted service and such a course was not adopted thus, dismissal of this appeal is sought.

Having considered the Submissions advanced, the record of this case and the decisions Cited, I find that the finding returned in the impugned judgment of notice under Sections 9 & 10 of Land Acquisition Act. being not served upon respondents/Claimants is well justified as it is borne out by the evidence of appellant''s witness-AW-2 on record. So far the applicability of sub-Section 2 of unamended Section 25 of Land Acquisition Act is concerned a bare reading of unamended Section 25 of Land Acquisition Act makes it Clear that this provision has to be read cumulatively and Sub-Section 2 of unamended Section 25 of land Acquisition Act cannot be read out of context. That is to say, unamended Section 25 would only apply when Notice u/s 9 of Land Acquisition Act The negative consequences as provided in the unamended Section 25 of land Acquisition Act would get attracted only when it is shown that Notice u/s 9 of Land Acquisition Act has been served upon the claimants and not otherwise therefore in the considered opinion of This Court the bar of unamended Section 25 of land Acquisition Act would not apply. Thus on the afore notice first ground raised, this appeal fails.

This Court is enhancement of compensation Claimed in the reference petition is strangely worded i.e. of not less then R. 10 per square yard is sought, but this cannot be reasonably understood to be not more than R. 10 per Square yard. In fact, there is no reason why a land owner who has lost his land, should not get the real market Value of the land should be restricted by technicalities to some provisional amount he had indicated while seeking the reference as Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act does not require that the enhancement south ought to be specified Because it Is for the court to determine the market value of the acquired land. Therefore Reference Court was well justified in assessing the fair market value of the acquired land in question in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in Ambya kalya (supra), which is as under:-

Under the scheme of Act, it is the Court to determine the market value, The compensation depends upon the market value. Established by evidence and does not depend upon what the land owner thinks is the value of his land. If he not going to get such amount, but is going to get actual market value. Similarly if the land owner is under an erroneous low opinion about the market value of this land and out of ignorance claim lesser amount that cannot be held against him to award an amount which is lesser then the market value, When the Act does not require the land owner to specify the amounts and subsequently if the market values is found to be more what is claimed, the land owner should get an amount less then the market value as compensation. Consequently, it follows that if the land owner seeks amendment of his claim, he should be permitted to amend the claim as when he comes to know about the true market value. When the Act is Silent in regard to these matters to impose any condition to the detriment of an innocent and ignorant land owner who has lost his land, would be wholly unjust.

In the instant appeal, since respondents/claimants had quantified the minimum amount of enhancement of compensation claimed without specifying the maximum amount claimed, therefore, they are legitimately entitled to fair assessment of the compensation of their acquired land. There was no question of their seeking amendment of their claim petition to seek a particular amount of compensation. Pertinently, quantum of compensation assessed by the reference court in is not questioned by appellant in this appeal but on technicality, rightful compensation is sought to be denied by appellant in this appeal which is neither justified in law in equity.

It appears that question of denial for interest for the period reference proceeding remained in abeyance was never raised at the final hearing before the Reference Court and so, it has not been dealt with in the impugned judgment. Otherwise also it has not been dealt justified in getting the reference proceeding adjourned sine die Because respondents/claimants Could not be served on account of them being not found at the given address. The appropriate course in such a situation is to get such unserved claimants/party served by way of substituted service for this lapse, respondents/Claimants cannot be held to be responsible to deny them the interest for the period the reference proceeding remained in abeyance. So even on the afore noted Second ground this appeal must fail. In view of the afore-going narration, this Court finds that this appeal is without any merit and is as dismissed, while leaving the parties to bear their own costs.