Case Brief: Union of India v Dhiraj (Dead) through LRs

FACTS:
A Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 25th February, 1981 proposing to acquire considerable land situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Kondli, including the land which is the subject matter of the present appeal, for a public purpose. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 29th September, 1981. The Land Acquisition Collector, after following the due procedure of law, passed an award on 31st March, 1982 fixing the rate of compensation at 3,000/- per bigha.
Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, an application for reference under Section 18 of the Act was made to the Court of competent jurisdiction. The Reference Court answered the reference partially in favour of the claimants and fixed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of 10,000/- per bigha for ab-pash land and 5,000/- per bigha for gair-ab-pash land.
Still dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the claimants preferred appeals before the High Court of Delhi.   The Division Bench of the High Court which disposed of the appeal under consideration relied upon the judgment of another Division Bench of that Court in the case of Anil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India [86 (2000) DLT 825] and further enhanced the compensation payable to the claimants to 345/- per square yard with the benefits aforenoticed.
The Union of India felt aggrieved by this judgment of the High Court enhancing the compensation   granted   to   the   claimants   to   the   extent   of  345/-   per square yard and had filed the present appeal before this Court.
ARGUMENTS BY THE APPELLANT:
The contention raised by the appellant is that the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of  Anil Kumar Sharma was set aside by this Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority v Bali Ram Sharma [(2004) 6 SCC   533] and the compensation of 345/- per square yard granted by the High Court in that case was reduced by this Court to 76,550/- per bigha and as such the compensation granted by the High Court in the present case was also liable to be reduced as being a case covered by the said judgment.
HELD:
The Apex Court observed that the present case was squarely covered by the judgment of the Court in Bali Ram Sharma’s case. While adopting the reasoning given by the Court in the cases of Karan Singh and Bali Ram Sharma, the Court set aside the judgment of the High Court under appeal and partially allowed the appeal filed by the Union of India reducing the compensation payable to the claimants to 76,550/- with 10% acceleration and other statutory benefits available to them under law.
The Court also noticed that the Court in the case of Sunder v Union of India [(2001) 7 SCC 211] has already held that the claimants would be entitled to interest on solatium and as this question was left open by the High Court, the Court in the instant case also directed that the claimants shall be entitled to claim interest on the amount of solatium for the permissible period.