http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIAPage 2 of 38
On or about 8.12.1986, the Appellants herein preferred appeals interms of Section 54 of the Act being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with thesaid judgment and award which were marked as R.F.A. No. 85 & 86 of1987. The Respondents herein upon service of notice filed cross objectionsseeking enhancement of compensation both in respect of land as well as themineral China Clay.HIGH COURT:The High Court by reason of the impugned judgment dismissed theappeals filed by the Appellants herein holding, inter alia, that the judgmentsand awards granting compensation for the lands acquired in theneighbouring villages which were upheld by it in R.F.A. Nos. 567/1990 and694/1990, would attract the principle of res judicata and, thus, the appealsfiled by the Appellants were not maintainable. The High Court, however,allowed the cross-objections filed by the Respondents herein in part.The High Court further refused to entertain an application filed by theAppellants herein under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedurefor bringing on record inter alia a sale deed whereby and whereunder one ofthe Respondents herein obtained assignment of 1/8th of the amount ofcompensation in the year 1980 for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- holding that thesame was not relevant for disposal of the appeals and in any event the sameshould have been brought on records by the Appellants before the ReferenceCourt.The Appellants before the High Court, inter alia, had raised acontention that as the proceeding arising out of reference having remainedstayed at the instance of the Respondents for the period January, 1972 andMay, 1980; they were not entitled to any interest which was rejectedopining that the statutory provisions for grant of interest as contained underSections 28 and 34 of the Act being mandatory in nature cannot be waived.For computing the market value of the lands, the High Courtproceeded on the basis that the lowest category of residential developedplots, as in the year 1965, should be taken to be the base therefor i.e. @ Rs.150/- per sq. yd. and directed deduction of 40% therefrom on the premisethat some time would have been necessary for excavating minor mineralsand to make the lands fully developed having regard to their tremendousbuilding potential. The High Court also directed further deduction of 20%from the wholesale price opining that Rs. 72/- per sq. yard would be a fairmarket price for the acquired land in the year1965. However, as regard thelands which were the subject matter of acquisition in terms of notificationdated 24.10.1961, relying on or on the basis of a decision of the High Courtin Rameshwar Solanki & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr. [57 (1995) DLT410], further deductions @ 12% p.a. were directed to be made therefromworking out the amount of compensation at Rs. 30/- per sq. yard for landswithout China Clay and Rs. 56 per sq. yard with China Clay.Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order, theUnion of India and the Delhi Development Authority are before us.SUBMISSIONS :The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Appellantsraised the following contentions in support of these appeals:(i) The nature of the lands being ’Gairmumkin Pahad’ and ’BanjarKadim’, as described in the entries made in the revenue record of rights forthe years 1907 and 1908, the Respondents were entitled to such amount ofcompensation only payable to a holder of Bhumidari rights in terms of theprovisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act and no other, wherefor Sections5, 6, 7, 11, 22, 23 and 154 thereof were required to be read conjointly.