HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
Sunil Gaur, J.
1. Impugned judgment grants compensation at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per bigha for the garden land measuring 35 bighas and 3 biswas situated in khasra No. 444(13-15), 450(10-01) and 451(11-07) in Village- Haiderpur, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘acquired land in question’) which along with 3919 bighas of land of this village stood acquired vide Notification of 24th October, 1961 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Reference Court in the impugned judgment has granted the aforesaid compensation while relying upon an earlier judgment (Ex. PA-1) i.e. in Smt. Chameli Devi Vs. Union of India, pertaining to this Notification and the village. For the rooms, tube well, engine house etc. on the acquired land in question the compensation assessed in the impugned judgment is of Rs.5,500/-.
2. In this appeal, compensation sought in respect of the acquired land in question having garden in it, is at the rate of Rs.16/- per square yard and for the structure on it compensation claimed is Rs.30,500/- while relying upon decisions in ‘The Collector, Rajgarh Vs. Chaturbhuj Panda & Ors.’ AIR 1964 MP 196; ‘State of Kerala Vs. Mariamma Abraham and another’ AIR 1969 Kerala 265; Collector, Jabalpur and another vs. Nawab Ahmad Yar Jahagir Khan, AIR 1971 MP 32; ‘Smt. Gulabi & Ors. Vs. State of H.P.’ 1997 (4) RCR (Civil) 179; ‘State of Madras Vs. Rev Brother Joseph’ AIR 1973 SC 2463; ‘UOI Vs. Smt. Shanti Devi’ AIR 1983 SC 1190;
‘Special Land Acquisition Collector Vs. P. Veerabhadar Appa.’ AIR 1984 SC 774 & ‘Sunder Vs. Union of India’ 93 (2001) DLT 569.
3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned judgment and the decisions cited, it emerges that judgment Ex.A-13 in LAC No. 52/73 ‘Ram Chander Vs. UOI’ relating to acquisition of land by virtue of Notification of the year 1959 under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act in Village- Peepalthala, Delhi, solely relied upon by the appellant’s counsel to claim higher compensation, has rightly not been relied upon by the Reference Court because judgment Ex. PA-1 of this village in respect of the Notification and the village in question is relevant and has been correctly made the basis to assess the compensation. It is so said because it is by now well settled that when instances of the village in question are available to determine the fair market value of the acquired land, then there is no need to look to other instances even if they are of neighbouring village, unless valid reasons are shown to exclude the instance of the village in question.
4. Regarding assessment of compensation for the superstructure on the acquired land in question is concerned, opinion of the Experts certainly has to be taken into consideration and the Reference Court in the impugned judgment has relied upon the Valuation Report (Ex. AW-8/1) of an Expert (RW-1) who is a Government Valuer and his valuation is based upon the CPWD rates. Whereas learned counsel for the appellants relies upon Report (EX. AW-1/1) of a private valuer, who also claims to have applied CPWD rates for the costs of the bricks but his valuation of the superstructure on the acquired land in question is Rs.30,523/- whereas the Government Valuer (RW-1) has assessed compensation of the super structure at Rs.5,465/-. When the Valuation Report (Ex. AW-1/1) is considered vis-à-vis Valuation Report (Ex. AW-8/1), then it becomes apparent that the Government valuer’s Report (Ex. AW-8/1) is objective one and is much prior in time than the Valuation Report (EX. AW-1/1) of the private valuer, which is on much higher side and therefore, impugned judgment rightly relies upon the Valuation Report of a Government valuer to determine the compensation in respect of the super structure on the acquired land in question.
5. In view of the aforesaid, no case for enhancing the compensation granted is made out. However, in view of the later decision of the Apex Court in Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 457, the appellants would be entitled to the statutory solatium etc. in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in ‘Sunder Vs. Union of India’ 93 (2001) DLT 569, as the instant appeal was pending when the decision in sunder (supra) was rendered.
6. This appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
JULY 13, 2012 rs (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE