- (1.)The notification under S. 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, (for short, 'the Act') acquiring large extent of lands in three villages including Khyala for planned development of Delhi was published on 3rd September, 1957, The Land Acquisition Collector by his award dated 31st August, 1961. determined the compensation @ Rs. 600/- Rs. 400/- and Rs. 200/- per bigha to various categories of lands. On reference, the District Court by its award and decree dated 19th March, 1975 enhanced the compensation at flat rate of Rs. 3,000/- per bigha. On further appeal, the High Court in the impugned judgment dated 16th September, 1994 further enhanced the compensation to Rs. 10.000/- per bigha. Since the petitioners claimed compensation @ Rs. 14,000/- per bigha, the especial leave petition has filed for the difference of the amount.
(2.)Shri Mahabir Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that as in an earlier case the claimants of other villages. viz., Tatarpur and Basaidarapur had restricted the claims to Rs. 10.000/ - per bigha, the Court having noted that the lands possessed potentiality to increase compensation to Rs. 14,000/- per bigha, confined the compensation to Rs. 10,000/- per bigha. According to him, that would not form the basis for limiting the compensation to the lands in village Khyala. He further contends that it was noted by the High Court that the lands were possessed of potential value and the petitioners are, therefore, entitled to the higher compensation @ Rs. 14,000/- per bigha. We find no force in these contentions.
(3.)The High Court in the impugned judgment had noted that the entire village Tatarpur is located adjacent to Nazafgarh-Delhi Road but the lands in Khyala are far interior to the lands in Tatarpuir village. The lands of the village Khyala start from northern boundary of village Tatarpur and the acquired land is farther away towards north from the road. In view of these facts it was found that determination of the compensation are Rs. 10,000/- was just and fair. In view of the distinguishing features explained by the High Court, we think that there is no justification to further enhance the compensation.