a
	26.02.2004<br>Present: Mr.S.K.Solanki, Advocate.<br>Mr.S.S.Dalal, Advocate for UOI.<br>Ms.Mukti Bodh, Advocate for counsel for<br>respondent No.2
	RFA No.548/2000
к.<br>К.	For orders, see the file of RFA No.514/2000.
	Deber Bhandari, J.
	FEBRUARY 26, 2004<br>sb
ίυ<br>Γ	· · · · · ·
	•
	•
Ire Not Verifiel
	The Not Verifie I<br>and By AVULYA<br>the diguer file and<br>have been compared and

۰

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

-: 1 :-

Date of Decision: February 26, 2004.

į

<u>RFA No.514/2000 515, 518, 527, 528, 529, 538,</u> 539, 544, 545, 546, 548/2000, 693, 626/2002, 134, 81/2003 & 535/2000

SH.DALBIR SINGH ..... Appellant. Through:Mr.S.K.Solanki, Advocate.

vcrsus

1%

UOI & ANR. ..... Respondents Through:Mr.S.S.Dalal, Advocate for UOI. Ms.Mukti Bodh, Advocate for counsel for respondent No.2

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALVEER BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.C.JAIN

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? $p^{\circ}$

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

DALVEER BHANDARI, J (Oral) .

1. These appeals are directed against the impugned judgment of the learned Addl.District Judge. These appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. After issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Land

• Acquisition Act on 31.12.1993 followed by a declaration

under Section 6 of the Act issued on 3.5.1994 about 84 bighas 8 biswas land was acquired by the Government for the purpose of building of oil depot for the planned development of Delhi. Appeliants' lands were also acquired for the same scheme. The Land Acquisition Collector after completing the requisite formalities awarded compensation award No.2/96/97 @ Rs.96,875/- per bigha besides other statutory benefits.

3. The appellants dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Collector filed reference petitions under Section 18 of the Act before the Reference Court. The appellants claimed enhancement of compensation @ Rs.10 lacs per bigha besides other statutory benefits. The learned Addi.District Judge on the basis of pleadings of the parties framed following issues:-

(1)What was the fair and justified market value of the land of the petitioner as on date of notification under Section 4 of the Act.

(2) Relicf.

1 10-

3. Apart from the pleadings the learned Addi.District Judge has carefully perused the judgements delivered by the Apex Court and this Court and he assessed the market value of

-: 2 :-

ľ

the land @ Rs.1,39,500/- per bigha. According to the judgment the appellants would also be entitled to appreciation @ 12% per annum. The appellants would also be entitled to solatium @ 30% on the above market value in view of the compulsory acquisition of land as also interest under Section 28 of the Act @ 9% per annum for the first year from the date of dispossession and @ 15% per annum for the subsequent period till the payment of difference between the enhanced compensation awarded is paid to the appellants.

4. We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the judgment. In our considered view, no interference is called for. For the reasons stated in the judgment of the learned Addl.District Judge, the appeals being devoid of any merit are accordingly dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.

Dalver Bhandin

DALVEER BHANDARI, J.

R.C. JAIN, J.

FEBRUARY 26, 2004 sb

ખર્ડુ .

-: 3 :-