Decided on November 16,1954

DATA RAM Respondents


- (1.) THESE are 18 appeals (Regular First Appeals Nos. 139 to 156 of 1951) under Section 3, U. P. Town Improvement (Appeals) Act of 1920 as extended to Delhi.
(2.) AN area of land in the limits of the village of Khampur Raya has been acquired by the Delhi improvement Trust in connection with a scheme for the widening of a road called Road No. 34. The preliminary notification under Section 36, U. P. Town Improvement Act as extended to delhi was issued on 27-12-1941, and thus although the awards of the Collector regarding the amounts to be paid to the various owners of portions of the land were not delivered until 1948, the market-price had to be calculated in accordance with the provisions of the Act as it was in december 1941. The Collector held that the laud was agricultural land of the class called 'rosli' and valued it only at Rs. 120/- per 'bigha' which amounts approximately to -/1/3 per square yard. His awards in favour of the 18 separate land-owners were thus based on this figure. The 18 land-owners then made references under Section 18, Land Acquisition Act read with Sections 56 to 58, Delhi improvement Act to the Tribunal which enhanced the rate of compensation in each case to Rs. 2/8/- per square. yard. Thus the present appeals have been filed by the Government on behalf of the Improvement Trust against the awards of the Tribunal. One of the land-owners Ram Dass, has also filed cross-objections claiming an additional sum of Rs. 32,000/- as compensation under section 48-A of the Act.
(3.) IN all the appeals the preliminary objection has been raised that none of them can be entertained because the necessary certificate from the Chairman of the Tribunal has not been properly given. The provisions of Section 3, Town Improvement (Appeals) Act of 1920 are as follows: "3 (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the United Provinces Town Improvement Act, 1919, and subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2), an appeal shall lie to the High Court in any of the following cases, namely: (a) Where the decision is that of the President of the Tribunal sitting alone in pursuance of clause (b) of Section 64 of the said Act; (b) where the decision is that of the Tribunal, and (i) The President of the Tribunal grants a certificate that the case is a fit one for appeal, or (ii) the High Court grants special leave to appeal: Provided that the High Court shall not grant any special leave unless the President has refused to grant a certificate under Sub-clause (i) and the amount in dispute is not less than Rs. 5,000/ -. (2) An appeal under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) shall only lie on one or more of the following grounds, namely: (i) the decision being contrary to law or to some usage having the force of law; (ii) the decision having failed to determine some material issue of law or usage having the force of law; (iii) a substantial error or defect in the procedure provided by the said Act which may possibly have produced error or defect in the decision of the case upon the merits. " the certificates in the present appeals are all in the form in which they have always hitherto been supplied, namely the particulars of the case are first stated and then follows the sentence: "on the application of the Union of India respondent in the suit above cited, I do hereby certify that the case is a fit one for appeal. " Under this appears the signature of the President of the Tribunal.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.