BHULE RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-2014-3-61
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: DELHI)
Decided on
March 28,2014
BHULE RAM
Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
THAKUR KAMTA PRASAD SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]ADUSUMILLI GOPALAKRISHNA VS. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION [REFERRED TO]
SHER SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
JAWAJEE NAGNATHAM VS. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER ADILABAD A P [REFERRED TO]
LAND ACQUISITION OFFIER SUB COLLECTOR GADWAL VS. SREELATHABHOOPAL [REFERRED TO]
SUNDER VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
VILUBEN JHALEJAR CONTRACTOR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
CHARAN DASS VS. HIMACHAL PRADESH HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [REFERRED TO]
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER VS. KARIGOWDA [REFERRED TO]
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD VS. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER [REFERRED TO]
BILKIS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
TRISHALA JAIN VS. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL [REFERRED TO]
SABHIA MOHAMMED YUSUF ABDUL HAMID MULLA D BY L RS VS. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER [REFERRED TO]
HARI CHAND VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
VYRICHERLA NARAYANA GAJAPATIRAJU VS. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, VIZAGAPATAM [REFERRED TO]
ASHRAFI VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER [REFERRED TO]
ANDHRA PRADESH INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE CORPORATION LIMITED VS. G. MOHAN REDDY [REFERRED TO]
RAMANLAL DEOCHAND SHAH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2023-5-72] [REFERRED TO]KAILASHO DEVI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-4-190] [REFERRED TO]
KENDRIYA SARKARI SEVA SAHKARI BHUMI TATHA GRIH NIRMAN SAMITI VS. NOIDA AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-12-125] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, DIGRAS VS. SATISCHANDRA RIKHABCHANDRA MEHTA [LAWS(BOM)-2018-3-7] [REFERRED TO]
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER VS. DHONDIBA DAGADU PAWAGI AND ANOTHER [LAWS(BOM)-2017-3-286] [REFERRED TO]
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, N H P C VS. TEDHI SINGH & ANOTHER [LAWS(HPH)-2016-9-20] [REFERRED]
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD VS. BASHANDGAN NAMBLABAL PAMPORE [LAWS(J&K)-2023-6-26] [REFERRED TO]
GANGA POLLUTION CONTROL UNIT, U.P. JAL NIGAM VS. GAYA PRASAD AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2017-5-90] [REFERRED TO]
IMTYAZ ALAM VS. COLLECTOR BHADHOHI [LAWS(ALL)-2017-1-460] [REFERRED TO]
BULANDSHAHR KHURJA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. AMIR KUWAR AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-7-472] [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDER SOOD VS. UOI AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2017-11-413] [REFERRED TO]
U.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. SMT. SUSHILA DEVI & OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2015-11-209] [REFERRED TO]
LOKINDER SINGH & OTHERS VS. STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2018-4-206] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. BHIMDEO S/O RATTU RATHOD [LAWS(BOM)-2022-3-58] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. VS. JAI RAM AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-11-26] [REFERRED TO]
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. VS. JAGPAL SINGH AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-2-101] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. ASHLAYABAI [LAWS(KAR)-2021-6-149] [REFERRED TO]
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-CUM-REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER VS. S.V.JAGANNATHA RAO [LAWS(TLNG)-2021-10-81] [REFERRED TO]
ADARSH KHALSA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2016-3-217] [REFERRED]
KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI VS. MOHAMMAD ALI AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-9-261] [REFERRED TO]
U.P. JAL NIGAM VS. JAWAHAR LAL AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-3-96] [REFERRED TO]
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. VS. GARG FAMRS AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-8-269] [REFERRED TO]
GADDAMEEDI NARSA GOUD AND 165 OTHERS VS. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR [LAWS(APH)-2016-4-77] [REFERRED]
STATE OF U.P. VS. HAKIM SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2015-4-453] [REFERRED TO]
BAJAJ HINDUSTAN LTD; RAJENDRA SINGH VS. RAJENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS; STATE OF U P AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-7-60] [REFERRED TO]
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD VS. JAGPAL SINGH AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-12-51] [REFERRED TO]
NALINI VS. CHIEF SECRETARY [LAWS(KAR)-2023-4-546] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVAKUMAR VS. SPL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER GADAG [LAWS(KAR)-2021-6-22] [REFERRED TO]
MADAN PAL VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2018-3-262] [REFERRED TO]
KANDLA POST TRUST VS. IMC LIMITED EARLIER KNOWN AS UNITED STORAGE TANKS TERMINAL LIMITED [LAWS(GJH)-2022-5-177] [REFERRED TO]
GAS AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD VS. RAM ASREY & OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2015-11-238] [REFERRED]
STATE OF U P & ANOTHER VS. RASHMI JAIN [LAWS(ALL)-2018-1-467] [REFERRED TO]
COLLECTOR, AGRA AND ORS. VS. SHYAM BABU AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-7-318] [REFERRED TO]
GADDAMEEDI NARSA GOUD VS. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION UNIT, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY [LAWS(APH)-2016-4-42] [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. VS. DHARAMVIR AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-10-85] [REFERRED TO]
ASHA RAM & ANOTHER VS. U.P.A.E.P. & OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2015-12-282] [REFERRED TO]
AZIZ PASHA VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER [LAWS(KAR)-2020-2-18] [REFERRED TO]
BULANDHSHAHR KHURJA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. HAMID ALI SINCE DECEASED [LAWS(ALL)-2019-9-106] [REFERRED TO]
U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD VS. SMT. RUKMAN DEVI & OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-2-230] [REFERRED TO]
PURUJIT SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2018-4-54] [REFERRED TO]
GURPAL SINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2018-5-78] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 8.12.2009 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Land Acquisition Appeal No. 154 of 2007 by which the High Court has assessed the market value of the land @Rs.6,51,000/- per acre modifying the award under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') under which the land had been assessed @Rs.5,99,850/- per acre. The appellant claimed that his land ought to have been assessed @Rs.10,00,000/- per acre.
(2.)Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that:
A. Land comprised in Khasra Nos. 752(4-16), 753(4-16), 765(4-16), in all 24 bighas, in which the appellant had 1/3rd share and Khasra Nos. 757 (6-15), 758(4-17) and 761(4-16), in all 16 bighas 8 biswas (full share), situated in revenue village Aali, Delhi, stood notified under Section 4 of the Act for the purpose of construction of Ash Pond at Badarpur Thermal Power Station on 16.10.1992 alongwith a huge tract of land belonging to other persons in different villages.
B. In respect of the said land, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 23.3.1993. The award under Section 11 of the Act was made on 6.6.1994 assessing the market value of the land of the appellant @Rs.4,65,000/- per acre.
C. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred a reference under Section 18 of the Act and the Reference Court made the award dated 10.1.2007 assessing the market value of the land @Rs.5,99,850/- per acre with other statutory benefits.
D. Appellant preferred appeal under Section 54 of the Act before the High Court claiming further enhancement contending that his land ought to have been assessed @Rs.10,00,000/- per acre. The High Court disposed of the appeal vide impugned judgment and order dated 8.12.2009 assessing the market value of the land @Rs.6,51,000/- per acre placing reliance on other judgments in appeal before the High Court.
Hence, this appeal.
(3.)Ms. Shobha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Ms. Priya Hingorani, learned counsel appearing in other connected appeals have raised serious issues that the land ought to have been assessed at the rate on which the land covered by the same notification under Section 4 of the Act in the neighouring village have been assessed. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed.
(2.)Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that:
A. Land comprised in Khasra Nos. 752(4-16), 753(4-16), 765(4-16), in all 24 bighas, in which the appellant had 1/3rd share and Khasra Nos. 757 (6-15), 758(4-17) and 761(4-16), in all 16 bighas 8 biswas (full share), situated in revenue village Aali, Delhi, stood notified under Section 4 of the Act for the purpose of construction of Ash Pond at Badarpur Thermal Power Station on 16.10.1992 alongwith a huge tract of land belonging to other persons in different villages.
B. In respect of the said land, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 23.3.1993. The award under Section 11 of the Act was made on 6.6.1994 assessing the market value of the land of the appellant @Rs.4,65,000/- per acre.
C. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred a reference under Section 18 of the Act and the Reference Court made the award dated 10.1.2007 assessing the market value of the land @Rs.5,99,850/- per acre with other statutory benefits.
D. Appellant preferred appeal under Section 54 of the Act before the High Court claiming further enhancement contending that his land ought to have been assessed @Rs.10,00,000/- per acre. The High Court disposed of the appeal vide impugned judgment and order dated 8.12.2009 assessing the market value of the land @Rs.6,51,000/- per acre placing reliance on other judgments in appeal before the High Court.
Hence, this appeal.
(3.)Ms. Shobha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Ms. Priya Hingorani, learned counsel appearing in other connected appeals have raised serious issues that the land ought to have been assessed at the rate on which the land covered by the same notification under Section 4 of the Act in the neighouring village have been assessed. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.