Bhim Singh v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER

23.12.2011 For orders see LA.APP No. 608 of 2009. rtL GAUR) JUDGE December 23, 2011 rs LA.AppNo.608/2009&Connectedmatters Page 2 • > % + in" the high court of DELHIAT NEW DELHI , Reservedon: 8^''November.2011 Prnnounced on-December, 2_011 SHRIRAMESH KUMAR , Througli; Mr. Deepak Khosla & Mr. V.P. R.ma, Advocates. • versus UNIONOF INDIA &ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mi". Sanjay Podar, Senior Advocate VN^iti Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Ms. K.Kamoudi Kiran, Mr. Mohitrao Jadhav & Ms. NavUn Swain, Advocates. Q y I 1 AApp 41^/9011 T.A.APP 608/9009.LA.APPl29/20 rA.APP219/2010, T.A APP 22912m. LA.,Am33M10.--l^-APP 9W2010. LA.APP 235/2010. LA.APP 236/m^A.MP--237/i^ LAAaP_240M10.JLAAPP_24^^ 9^6/9010& CM No. 12934/2011(cros^jectigns}^^ r,A.APP258/2010,LA.jyPP^59jmO.AAFP_2^^ T.A.APP A17/9010 & CM No.3584/2011 (cross objections),La^AL 419/2010 TAAPP 495/2010. LA.APP 453/2010, LA.APP_516/2^, TAAPP M7/9010 LA.APP 548/2010. LA.APP..549/^.liL_iAA]J^ IAAPP -S54/20in T.A.APP 555/7010, T.A.APP 5S6/2(^0^i^^£

7.7onin r AAPP 55R/7.niO. LA.APP 559/2m.JAAPP_Wi0]0. I.A.APP 561/7.010. LA.APP 562/2010, T,A APP •563/2010, LA.^ 564/7010. LA.APP 565/2010, LA.APP 567/7.010, LA.APP 56., I AAPP 569/2010. LA.APP 570/2010. LA.APP 571/2010, LAALE .-ronnin TA APP 571/7010. LA.APP 574/2010, LA.APP 575/2010, Fa APP 576/2010. LA.APP 77.0imi^L£MtmMO:AAPP

777./7.0I0. LA APP 771/2010 T.A.APP 774/7.010. LA.APP 775/2m LA.App No.608/2009&Connectedmatters Page 1 .Mc,-,:- ::y.' r •• • LA.APP 805/2010. LA.APP 822/2010. LA.APP 824/2010 & CM No.10333/2011 (cross-obiection\ LA.APP 864/2010. LA.APP 901/2010, LA.APP 902/2010. LA.APP 962/2010.. LA.APP 1014/2010, LA.APP 1015/2010, LA.APP 1016/2010, LA.APP .1027/2010, LA^,PP 1032/2010. LA.APP 1035/2010. LAAPP 1037/2010. LA.APP 1038/2010 & CM No. 12952/2011 (cross-objections). LA.APP 1039/2010 .(CM No. 12875/2011 -& CM No. 12876/20.11. (cross obiections). LA.APP 154/2011. LA.APP 158/2011. LA.APP 274/2011.'LA.APP 368/2011, LA.APP 379/2011, LA.APP 384/2011 & LA.APP 411/2011 th (Relating to NotificationNo. F.No.ll(36)/94-L&B/LA/5722dated 5 April, 1995 issuedunder Section4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 19/97-98, Village-Shahpur Garhi, Delhi) COl^M: ' • • • HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE. SUNIL GAUR . ORDER

23.12.2011

¶1The above captionedappeds arise out of Award No.19/97-98 of Ihe concernedLand AcquisitionCollectorpertainingto the agricultural land,in the revenue estate of Village-Shahpur Garhi, Delhi, which was .acquired by the respondentvide Notificationof 5^'^ April, 1995 under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894. The market price of the acquired land in question was determined by the Land Acquisition Collector@^8,01,600/-per acre or @^1,67,000/-per bigha. . 2. In the Reference sought under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Apt, 1894 by the claimants/ land owners i.e.. the appellants, die Reference Court has enlianced the compensation to ^8,16,720/- per acre. Not satisfied with the aforesaid enliancement of?15,120/- per acre for the acquired land, appellants have.coine up in these appeals to seek much higher compensation i.e. enhanced compensation @ ?100/- per square yard.

¶3For development of Freight Complex in Narela Project, vide Notificationof 5^'' April,T995, under Section4 of the'LandAcquisition LA.App No.608/2009 & Connected matters Page 2 \P m. p, i 'Ir r li; '"mm-J:ryy Act, alargeareaofagriculturallandmeasuring733 bighasand 10 biswas o! Village-Shahpur.Garhi, Delhi was acquiredby the respondents.The factual details disclosing as to how in pursuance to the aforesaid Notification,AwardNo. 19/97-98cameto be passedand the substanceof the evidenceled beforethe ReferenceCourtstandsnotedin the impugned judgmentand is not requiredto be recapitulated.

¶4Beforethe ReferenceCourt, assessmentof the marketvalue of the acquiredland in questionAvas soughton the basis ofDDA predetermined, rate of the year 1992-93pertainingto NarelaResidentialScheme and on the strengthofDSIDC approvedlandrate for allotmentofplots in Narela IndustiialComplex, which stands negated in the impugnedorder while relying upon decision of the Apex Court in Union of India Fs, Ram } Phool(2003) 10 see 167. On the aspect of potentialityof the acquired land in question being near the developed land. Reference Court has extensivelyrelied upon.DivisionBench decisionofthis Court in Gajraj Singh Vs. Union of India 2006 VI AD (Delhi) 13 in maintaining enliancement@11.5% from the effectivedate of governmentpolicy of fixing minimum price of agriculturallands in Delhi, till Notification under Section'4 ofthe Land AcquisitionAct was issued.Notingthat the . boundary of Village-Shahpur Garhi touches the boundary of Village-HolambiKalan, ReferenceCourtin the impugnedjudgmenthas assessed the compensationin the instant case on the basis ofthe compensation, assessedby this Courtin GajrajSingh (Supra)relatingto Notificationof 15"^ November, 1996,: under Section4 of Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, , pertaining to Village -X"i2/a77.

¶5In theseappeals,at the final hearing,the counselspresenton behalf ofthe appellantsas well as seniorcounselfor the respondentswere heard and with their assistance,the impugnedjudgment and the reccird was LA.App No. 608/2009 & Connected matters Page 3 . /• perused. Since the submissions advanced by botii the sides in these appealswere common,therefore,with the consentoflearnedcounselfor the parties,these appeals and cross-objectionsare being decidedby this . common order.

¶6The grounds of challenge to the Award; of Land Acquisition Collector before the Reference Court are being noticed herein, for the reason that the same Very grounds have been urged in these appeals on behalfof the appellants.Tiies'eare:- 'i) That LAC has' given very low rate of market value though the land of the petitionerhas got potential value as the land of the petitioner is suiToundedby the . biggest colony of Asia namelyRohini and the land was • acquired for the commercial activities;

ii) • .that LAC has not taken into considerationthat land has been acquiredfor commercialactivities such as for setting of freight complex, therefore, market value of the land should -be fixed at the rate of Rs.5,000/-per sq.meter.

iii) that his land is situated quite close to the residential area of Narela and DSIDC Complex due to which his land has more potential value; ,

iv) that land of the petitioneris betweentWo roads including a national highway i.e. GovernmentKarnal Road, and Delhi Narela Road, therefore, it has great potentialityfor residentialand commercialpurposes; that palatial farm house has been constructed in the same revenue estate' in which land of the petitioner has been situated;

v) that land ofthepetitioneris folly developedand has all the modern facilities/ necessities i.e. telephone,, electric, connection, water supply, public schools and SSN College and most frequent service of DTC buses and other private transport.'

¶7In substance, aforesaid grounds are the submissions advanced on behalfof the appellantsbeforethis Courtto challengethe impugnedorder of the Reference Court. Undisputedly,the land use of the acquired land in LA.App No.608/2009 & Connected matters Page 4 '-•'7 ;.{• . r-'" vSr question Avas agriculturalat the time of issuance of Notificationundei Section4 of Land AcquisitionAct in question.The main groundto seek enhancementof compensationput forth on behalfofthe-appellantsis llie potentialvalueofthe land in question.Thoughthe standofthe appellants herein before the Reference Court was-that the land in question is strategicallylocatedfrom the commercialand industrialpointofview, as it is just two kilometres away from Narela Green Mandi and three kilometres away from DSIDC Industrial Complex and that it has a great marketvalue and potentiality,as ithasbeen acquiredfor the development of Rohini Residential Scheme.

¶8Appellants claim that acquired land is in close proximity of IndustrialArea developedby DSIDCand residentialcolonydevelopedby DDA, and they rely upon Letterof Allotment(EX. PW-l/A)of a plot in NarelaIndustrialComplex@?650/-per squaremeterinthe year 1990 by DSIDC. It is also claimed by.the appellantsthat allotmentof alternate I plot under the NarelaResidentialSchemeby DDA in the year 1992-93, was available@^650/- per square meter as per demand cum allotment letter (EX. PW2/1). Thus, seeking parity with aforesaid rates of developed lands, enhancement in compensation is sought by the appellants.

¶9On the factual aspect, it stands noted in the impugnedjudgment that the land of the villages adjoiningthe village in question,including villag^- Holambi Kalan, has been acquired for the development of industrialarea and Narela residentialarea in Narela. Concedingthat the acquiredland is in proximityofthe industrialarea developedby DSIDC;, learnedseniorcounselfor the respondenthas clarifiedthat the purposeof acquisitionofthe land in questionis solelyfor the developmentoffreight complex in Narela. However, it.was disputedthat the acquired land in LA.AppNo.608/2009&Connectedmatters Page 5 .y / r" question is surrounded by any developed colony and thus, it was contended that the appellants cannot claim enhancement of the compensation by relying upon the rate of land in Narela Industrial Complexor undertheNarelaResidentialSchemefloatedbyDDA. In this regard reliancewas placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in Lai Chand Vs. Union of India & Anr. (2009) 15 SCC 769. Rehance was also placed upon a decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in LA.APP 266/2008Jai Singh Union of India &Anr, , rendered on 23"' August, 2011, wherein in relationto.this village, pertainingto an acquisition of land vide Notification of 16* May, 2002, amount of compensationwas determined at ?18,65,500/-per acre while relying upon a DivisionBench decisionof this Courtin GqjrajSingh Vs. Union ofIndia 2006 IV AD (Delhi) 13.

¶10Even in the impugned judgment, in the absence of sale instances, Reference Court•has relied upon Gajraj Singh (Supra), wherein pertainingto acquisitionof the.land of the adjoiningvillage-Holainbi Kalan, in relation to Notification of 15"' November, 1996, the compensationdeterminedwas @ ^9,76,121/-per acre for A Category land and@^9,51,121/-per acre for B Categoryland.

¶11Reference Court has rightly concludedthat grounds of challenge laid to the Award, as noted in paragraphNo.6 herein above, againstthe Award inquestion,remainsunsubstantiatedby the appellants.

¶12While relying upon two decisions of the Apex Court in Bhim Singh Vs. State of Haiyana (2003)^.10 SCC 529 & Union ofIndia Vs. 'Ram Phool (2003) 10 SCC 167, claim of the appellantsto apply DDA and DSIDC rates to the land in questionstands repelledby holding that no willingpurchaserwould buy agriculturallandin questionatthe rate on whichgovernmentis allottingdevelopedland. LA.AppNo.608/2009&Connectedmatters jsgge6 A'..- * r.--'

¶13During the course of hearing,'learned counsel for the apjDcllants were not able to show that the. aforesaid decisions are inapplicable nor any decision to the contrary was cited. Infact, Apex Court in its recent •decision in Lai Chand Vs.'Uniost of India (2009) 15 SCC 769 has •reiterated in no uncertainterms that the rates for allotment of developed land by the DDA cannot be the basis for calculation of the market value of the acquired undeveloped lands. The pertinent observations made in paragraphs No.44 & 48 in Lai Chand (Supra), which deserves to be highlighted, are as under '44, One of the recognized methods for determination ofmarket vahie is with reference to the opinion ofexperts. The estimation of market value by such 'statutorily constituted. Expert Committees, as expert evidence can therefore form, the basis for determining the market value in land acquisition cases, as a. relevant piece ofevidence. It will be however open to either party to place evidence to dislodge the presumption that mayflow from such guideline market value. We, hoM>ever, hasten to add that the guideline market value can be a relevant piece of evidence only if they are assessed by statutorily appointed Expert Com.mittees, in accordance with the prescribed assessment procedure (either streetyvise, or roadwise, or areawise, or villagewise) and finalized after inviting objections and published in. the gazette. Be that as it m.ay.

¶48Even if the relied upon transaction is only tM)o to three years prior to the acquisition, the Court should, before adopting a standard escalation, satisfy itself that there M'ere no adverse circumstances. For example, if the acquisition is of the year 2009, it may not be possible to determine the market value, based on the 2007 or 2008 prices, by providing an increase of 12% or 15% per year, as the neM'spaper reports disclose that the price of immovable properties in. most areas of the country came down by more than 40% to 50% from, the 2007 rates. Caution is therefore necessary before increasing the price with reference to the old transactions: Be that as it may. It is clear that the award, made in regard to a 1961 acquisition will not be of any use for determining the market valuefor a 1981 acquisition.' LA.App No.608/2009 & Connected matters ' Page 7 Sil'' •I I

¶14The aforesaiddecisionoftheApex CourtinLaiSingh (Supra),has been folloAvedby aCoordinateBenchofthis Courtin JaiSingh (Supra), whichalso applieson all fours inthesemattersas.well.

¶15On the potentialityaspect,neitherthe map/ sizra(EX. PW3/A)nor any other evidence,establishesthat apart from the DSIDC, there is any developmentin the vicinity of the acquired land. As already observed above, no sale instancesofthe nearbyarea are forthcomingto depictthe potentialityofthe area in question.It has to be kept in mind that the land mquestionhas beenacquiredfor developmentofthe freightcomplexand not for the developmentofaresidentialarea. Exceptthe oral assertionof the appellants/claimantsthat the acquiredland is for the developmentof the RohiniResidentialArea,thereis no tangibleevidenceto establishthis factual assertion. - '

¶16Cross objectionsfiled by the respondentsto maintainthe rate of compensationfixed by the Land AcquisitionCollector'and not to adopt the ratio ofdecisionin Gq/raj(Supra), are found to be withoutsubstance for the reason that undisputedlyQajraj (Supra) attainedfinalityand becauseit has not been shown by the respondentsas to how this decision of the DivisionBench of this Court has been wrongly•applied by the ReferenceCourt to the facts of the instantcases. Rather,I find that the ReferenceCourthas correctlyreliedupon the decisionin Gajraj(Supra), to arriveat the correctmarketvalueofthe acquiredlandin question.

¶17•Since the decision of the DivisionBench of this case in Ga]raj, (Supra), has attained finality and it is the basis of the decision of a CooidinateBenchofthis CourtinJaiSingh (Supra),and is alsothe basis of.the impugned order, therefore,I find no infirmityin the impugned order, adoptingthe rate of compensationas fixed by DivisionBencliof this Court in Gajraj(Supra),in the matterofadjoiningvillage-Holainbi "i^aJ^P^^08/2009&Connectedmatters Page 8 h' '' mm • r- •• Kalan. Even the reductionoftherate ofcompensationassessed@11.5% compoundinterestfrom the date ofNotificationof 15^'^ November,1996 in Gajraj(Supra) to date ofNotificationof 5^'^ April, 1995 in the instant case is concerned,I find the sameto be in conformityAvith the decisionin Gajraj (Supra), wherein annual compounding @ir.5% has been approved.

¶18As neither side couid tind fault in tlie-impugnedjudgment determinmgthe market value of the land in question@?8.16,720Aper acre, tlierefore,the appealsofthe claimantas well as cross-objectionsof the respondentsare dismissed,witlino orderas to costs.Accordingly,all the above-mentionedappeals and cross-objectionsare disposedof with' direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount, if any, depositedby eitherside with the RegistrarGeneralofthis Coiu't, to the concernedReference Court. JUDGE-Jlieceniber 23, 2011 IS LA.AppNo.608/2009&Connectedmatters ' Page 9

:r' % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 8'^ November, 2011 Pronounced on: 23''^December, 2011 + LA APP.415/201L LA.APP 608/2009, LA.APP 129/2010, LA.APP 130/2010, LA.APP 176/2010 & CM No. 12873/2011. LA.APP 177/2010, LA.APP 179/2010, LA.APP 184/2010. LA.APP 214/2010, LA.APP219/2010. LA.APP 229/2010. LA.APP233/2010. LA.APP 234/2010. LA.APP 235/2010. LA.APP 236/2010. LA.APP 237/2010, LA.APP 240/2010, LA.APP 241/2010, LA.APP 255/2010. LA.APP 256/2010 & CM No. 12934/2011 (cross obiectionsl LA.APP 257/2010. LA. APP. 258/2010. LA. APP /2010. LA.APP 271/2010, LA.APP 413/2010. LA.APP 414/2010. LA.APP 415/2010. LA.APP 416/2010. LA.APP 417/2010 & CM No.3584/2011 (cross objections). LA.APP 419/2010. LA.APP 425/2010. LA.APP 453/2010. LA.APP 546/2010. LA.APP 547/2010, LA.APP 548/2010, LA.APP 549/2010, LA.APP 550/2010, LA.APP 551/2010, LA.APP 552/2010, LA.APP 553/2010, LA.APP 554/2010. LA.APP 555/2010, LA.APP 556/2010, LA.APP 557/2010, LA.APP 558/2010. LA.APP 559/2010. LA.APP 560/2010. LA.APP 561/2010. LA.APP 562/2010, LA.APP 563/2010. LA.APP 564/2010. LA.APP 565/2010. LA.APP 567/2010. LA.APP 568/2010. LA.APP 569/2010. LA.APP 570/2010. LA.APP 571/2010. LA.APP 572/2010. LA.APP 573/2010, LA.APP 574/2010, LA.APP 575/2010, LA.APP 576/2010, LA.APP 770/2011, LA.APP 771/2010, LA.APP 772/2010, LA. APP 773/2010, LA.APP 774/2010. LA.APP 775/2010, LA.APP 805/2010, LA.APP 822/2010, LA.APP 824/2010 & CM No.10333/2011 (cross-obiection), LA.APP 864/2010, LA.APP 901/2010, LA.APP 902/2010, LA.APP 962/2010, LA.APP 1014/2010, LA.APP 1015/2010, LA.APP 1016/2010, LA.APP 1027/2010, LA.APP 1032/2010, LA.APP 1035/2010. LAkPP 1037/2010. LA.APP 1038/2010 & CM No.12952/2011 Vcross-obiections). LA.APP 1039/2010 (CM No.12875/2011 & CM No. 12876/2011 (cross objections). LA.APP 154/2011. LA.APP 158/2011, LA.APP 274/2011, LA.APP 368/2011, LA.APP 379/2011, LA.APP 384/2011 & LA.APP 411/2011 (Relating to Notification No. F.No.ll(36)/94-L&B/LA/5722 dated LA.App No.608/2009 & Connected matters Page 1 Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. 5"^ April, 1995 issuedunderSection4ofthe LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 19/97-98, Village- Shahpur Garhi, Delhi) Present: Mr. Deepak Khosla & Mr. V.P. Rana, Advocates for appellants. Mr. Sanjay Podar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Ms. K.Kamoudi Kiran, Mr. Mohit Rao Jadhav & Ms. Navlin Swain, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR