LexUNION OF INDIA versus PRAMOD GUPTA (D) BY LRS. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A UNION OF INDIA v. PRAMOD GUPTA (D) BY LRS. AND ORS. SEPTEMBER 7, 2005 B [ASHOK BHAN AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] Land Acquisition: c land Acquisition Act, 1894: Sections 4, 6, 18, 23, 25 and 54. Compensation-Market value-Methods to determine-Principle of res judicata-Applicability of-Notification to acquire lands for public purpose of constructing a Universit;~A portion of land admittedly contained minerals- Reference Court awarded compensation for the lands and for minor mineral D viz. China Clay-High Court dismissed appeals filed by the Central Government on the ground that judgments and awards granting compensation for the lands acquired in neighbouring villages which were upheld by it in appeal would attract principle of res judicata-Central Government's application under 0. 41 R. 27 CPC for bringing on record a sale deed rejected by High Court-Held: The principle of res judicata would apply only when the !is was E inter-parties and had attained finali~Even if the Central Government had not filed any appeal against the earlier judgments of the High Court it would not be estopped and precluded from raising the same question in a different proceeding-The best method to determine compensation would be the amount which a willing purchaser would pay to the owner-Hence, High Court not F justified in rejecting the application under 0. 41 R. 27 CPC-The area of the land, the nature thereof. advantages and disadvantages occurring therein are the relevant factors for determining the market value of the land acquired- Hence, matter remitted to High Court for fresh consideration. Sections 28 and 34-land acquisition-Compensation-Interest on G enhanced compensation-Proceedings between the parties remained stayed for a certain period-Claimants agreed not to claim interest on the enhanced compensation, if any, during the period of stay-However, High Court awarded interest for the said period-Correctness of-Held: Grant of interest under S. 28 is discretionary-Only rate of interest is mandatory-Even a mandatory provision of a statue can be waived-Once a claimant waived his right to H 48 " ,, ' \. ·- U.0.1. v. PRAMOD GUPTA (D) BY LRS. 49 ... claim interest with a view to obtaining an order of stay he is not entitled to A any interest for the period of stay-High Court judgment set aside. Constitution of India, 1950: ~ Article 142-Complete justice between the parties-Land acquisition under Land Acquisition Act, 1894-0rders disallowing application for B amendment filed by Central Government as also grant of permission to adduce j additional evidence by the claimants not questioned-Effect of-Held: As a large amount of public money was involved in the land acquisition said orders set aside with a view to doing complete justice between the parties. Two notifications dated 24.10.1961 and 23.0l.1965 were issued for c acquisition of the lands measuring ll05.04 bighas and 3895.07 bighas respectively for the public purpose of construction of a University. A portion of the land admittedly contained minerals. Two awards were made on 2.12.1967 and 8.04.1969. The Reference Court, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, awarded compensation @ Rs. 18,000 per bigha and Rs. 12,000 per bigha respectively. The Reference Court further D granted compensation @ Rs. 10.000 per bigha for minor mineral i.e. China Clay. The respondents were claiming their right, title and interest in the lands in- question from one 'GS' who was said to be the proprietor of a Pottery Works having a non-occupancy tenancy right therein. Several proceedings had been initiated in respect of right, title and interest of E respective parties after coming into force of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. The said 'GS' had allegedly been declared Bhumidhar by the Deputy Commissioner of Delhi. On appeal, the High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the > appellants holding that the judgments and awards granting compensation F for the lands acquired in the neighbouring villages which were upheld by it in different appeals, would attract the principle of res judicata. The High Court also refused to entertain an application filed by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for bringing on record a sale deed whereby; one of the respondents had obtained assignment of I/4th share of the amount of compensation. The High Court G fixed the amount of compensation in respect of land
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.