Decided on June 19,2013



B.S.VERMA, J. - (1.) THIS appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) is directed against the judgment and award dated 29.05.2000, passed by Additional District Judge, Dehradun, whereby in the land acquisition reference case Nos. 129 of 1990 and 171 of 1990, the annual value of the orchard has been fixed Rs. 49,893/ - and Rs. 41,458/ - respectively and applied the multiplier of fifteen on the said amounts. Cost of trees, which were standing on the boundary of the orchard, was also awarded in each case. Total Rs. 7,49,693/ - and Rs. 6,24,956/ - respectively were awarded to the claimant along with 30% solatium under Section 23(2)(a), 9% interest upto the date of possession and 15% thereafter under Section 28 of the said Act in each cases.
(2.) AGAINST the impugned award dated 29 -5 -2000, initially two appeals - F.A. No. 46 of 2001 (old No. 618 of 2000) and F.A. No. 161 of 2001 (Old No. 606 of 2000) were filed. This court having heard both the parties decided these appeals by the judgment and order dated 5 -8 -2005, wherein Chunni Lal was respondent. After decision of the appeals, review application No. 609/2009 was filed by the legal heirs of Chunni Lal respondent No.2 in F.A. No. 161/2001, on the ground that while this court decided the appeals, Chunni Lal had died and the decree has been passed against dead person. On this ground this court has allowed the review application filed by legal heirs of Chunni Lal on 9 -4 -2010 and F.A. No. 161/2001 was restored to its original number and the appeal is heard by this court. The legal heirs of respondent No.2 have also been heard. In another appeal No. 46/2001, review application No. 260/2010 along with delay condonation was filed and the review application as well as delay condonation applications were dismissed without reference to Court for not removing the defect pursuant to this courts order dated 5.1.2012 and the said appeal was not restored to its original number.
(3.) BEFORE dealing with the contention of the rival parties, it will be relevant to deal with necessary facts of the case under the appeal before me. The admitted facts are that the State proposed to acquire the land for purposes of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation ( for short the O.N.G.C.). In the case giving rise to Land Acquisition Reference No. 129 of 1990, land measuring 0.45 acre of Khasra No. 52 and 0.37 acre of Khasra No. 54 of village Kaulagarh, Central Doon, Dehradun was proposed to be acquired vide Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, which was published on 5.7.1985 followed by Notification under Section 6(1) of the Act issued on 5 -9 -1986. The possession was taken and the claimant filed objection before the S.L.A.O. In his objection dated 3.6.1988, the claimant Chunni Lal stated that he is owner/Bhumidhar of Khasra No. 52 area 0.45 acre and Khasra No. 54 area 0.37 acre of Mauja Kaulagarh and the land was acquired by the Collector. It was also stated that the S.L.A.O. while passing the award ignored the potential value and facilities etc. of the land acquired and the market value was determined at low rate. He further stated that the market value of the acquired land in respect of the orchard should have been determined by applying multiplier of 20 instead of 8. Ultimately, the S.L.A.O. passed the award on 25.4.1988. It was observed by him in the award that in the land of Khasra No. 52, area 0.45 acre and Khasra No. 54, area 0.37 acre, total area 0.82, there existed fruit bearing trees (orchard), therefore, the compensation for the said land was determined by calculating the annual income from the yield and by applying multiplier of 8. Aggrieved by the award passed by the S.L.A.O. the L.A. Reference Case No. 129 of 1990, Chunni Lal Vs. Collector and another was preferred before the Additional District Judge, Dehradun.;

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