1996 (9) TMI 619

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....11/94. In respect of the appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.6519/94, an extent of 10 bighas 7 biswas was acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation by his award Dated July 16, 1981 and October 12, 1981 respectively determining the Compensation at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per bigha to the respondent - Jai Ambe Co-op. Housing Society and Rs. 7,500/- per bigha to the respondent - Mahavir Housing to-op. Society. On reference, the civil Judge enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per bigha. As regards the award of the Civil Judge, an appeal was filed against the respondent - Jai Ambe Co-op. Society Ltd. The learned single Judge in appeal No.142/92 has confirmed the same by judgment dated May 2, 1994. As regar....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o a certificate issued by Tehsildar relating to some other village, which worked out at the rate of Rs. 44,000/- per acre and the sale deeds in support thereof. One curious fact in both the cases that cannot be lost sight of is that the claimants have purchased these properties after the notification under Section 4(1) was published and a reference came to be made at their instance to the civil Court. Though an opportunity was given to the appellant, for well over 11 years, no counter affidavit has been filed. As a result, they were set ex-parte. Yet another curious aspect that we cannot lose sight of is that the reference Judge has merely with parrot-like t consideration swallowed what with witnesses had stated that the market value is Rs.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ven the counsel who appeared for the Jaipur Development Authority was in collusion and steps were taken by laying a complaint before the Bar Counsel for professional misconduct. We need not further dwell up on that fact but suffice it to state that the acquisition proceedings have proceeded in collusion and, therefore, they were not reflected the correct market value as is available in this case. As seen in jai Ambe Co operative Housing Society's case. even their own sale deeds under which they have purchased from one Bhagwan Singh, who was said to be the original owner, were not even filed. Under these circumstances. We thought over the matter as to what would be the appropriate course to be adopted in this case. We are of the view tha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Court granted stay of dispossession on October 23, 1983. Therefore, the respondent-Society is not entitled to the interest prior to May 25, 1984. Therefore, the decree as regards payment of interest from the date of the notification till May 24, 1984 is clearly illegal. It is seen that since the award, if the reference Court is dated-- June 15, 1990 claimants will be entitled to interest from 25, 1984 at the rate of 6% per annum till August 1, 1987 and thereafter 15% per annum on the enhanced compensation till date of deposit in the Court. As regards the solatium is concerned, they are entitled to 30% solatium on the enhanced compensation. As regards the additional amount under Section 23 A) is concerned, the claimants are not entitled to ....