Mahender Singh v. UOI & Ors

ORDER

15.07.2011 For orders see LA.APP.L3l2007. -^"-11

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. JULY 15, 20LL dk t 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. r i II .r.'F*!fr@@!,&f-!rrudsB@.ffi €srlrlr'eutt.j,Je % rhr rHEtHtcH couRT oF DELHI AT NEW DEIHI '.' /o Date of DecisioQ:,75th./u/v 2077- + Roshan La.l [A.APP. 13 ',:007 i Through: Mr. S.K.Rout . Advocates t' Appellant & Mr,N.S.Llalal, Versus . ... ResPondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Standing Counsel (l-A), GNCT Delhi with Mr.Sachin Nawani and ' Mr Siddharth Panda Advocates for R-1 l 1612007, LA.APP. LA.APP.583/2OOB, LA.APP.589/2008, LA.APP.5 97 I2AAB, LA.APP.606/2008.

12.08.1997 & Award allov''led (-) uol & ORS AND LA.APP, I4I2OO1, LA.APP , I5I2OO7 , LA'APP, 567 l20o} LA.APP.5 8212008, LA.APP.5B4I2OOB, LA:APP,585I2OO8, Through: ,i "' ,n 6, ll t, 'u4 tvi LA.APP.5 9012008, LA.APP.5 9312008, LA.APP.59BI2OOB, LA,APP ,60412008, .(Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated No.5/DCW/2000-01, Village Baprola ) CORAM: HON'BLE MR..f USTICE PRADEEP NANDRA.I0G

1.. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be . to see the judgment?

¶2To be referred to RePorter oi not? LA.App..No .1312007 d tt .

0.. r ll lli" r1lllt' f . i i. n. .l I Page 1. of B

¶3Whether the judgment should PRADEEP NANDRAIOG, l. (Oral)

¶1Above captioned appeals agriculturai lands comprised in the Baprola. Acquisition commenced dated 12.8.1997 issued under Acquisition Act. 2, As per Acquisition Collector A and Block B. He lands at t2,08,383/- be reported in the Digest? pertain revenLre pu rsua ni Section' to acquisition of estate of village to a notification 4 of the Land award No,5/DCW/2000'01, the L-ahcl categorized the acquired'lands into Block determined fair m.arket value of nlock A per bigha and Block B lands at T1,77,A831- .; Sectioh 1B' of 'are not very decided the per bigha.

¶3Land owners sought reference uncler the Land Acquisition Act and for reasons which commendable, the learn'ed Reference Court references'by passing orders cin different dates.'

¶4The orders by which references have been decided are dated 25.8.2006, 28.8,2006, 29.8'2006, 30'B'2006'

31.8 .2006, 19.9.2006, 2?,9.2006, 29'9.2006 and 30.10'2006'

¶5I would note that all orders have b.een pasled by the same Judge. lt is apparent that the learned Judge deciding the references was more concerned,with the'units which he ;:t o tutnrnu probrem which he,ha,s cieated ior the Appeltare, court is that evidence is scattered in various references and different pieces of evidence has been considered in different .. orders, and.. further with respect to the same evidence, Page 2 ofE rlv., I ri Ilh-t&1 iW t_l I l,l ;l t'" 1,.i': ii'I, i .li:' t: ,' :i.l . .: ":i i.'!' i : : T' I 'W l _'l I r'. i.lit.l, , i. I I i.'l t ,.;j t LA.App.No'.13i2007 ii! I different reasoning are to be found in different orders.' lt has . only made the journey of this Courl a little longer.

¶7The Reference Court tras . ' enhanced thg . compensation to t2,r7,3741-per bigha for Block A land and {1,86,123.3q per bigha for Blo.cl< B land. A' perusal of the various decisions would show, and indeed learned counsel for .i the parties so concede, the learned TrialJuclge was sei2ecl rryith 3 sale deeds dated 5.12.1996, 5.8.1996 ?nd 1g.l .IgB7l exhibited as Ex.PW-1/1, Ex,pw-1/2 and ri.pw-r/3 in -l-AC : 't No.17812004. Exhibit marks in other references'wor-ild b,d different. The learned Reference court also discussed an agreement to sell dated 17 .8.1996, Ex.pW-1/4. in LAC No.17 812004 B, Thus, for purposes of the instant decision reference is being made to the evidence led in LAC No.r71lz004. lt may ,.s be highllghted that [he land owners, in different rdferences were relying upon either or bll the above 4 exhibits.

¶9Ex.PW-U1 pertains to 1 bigha and 3 biswa'of lancl sold in the revenue estate of village Nilothi. Ex.P\A/-1l2 pertains to l bigha land sold in village Mundka arrd Ex.P\{/.1./3 .: pertains. to 1 bigha land sold in village Najafgarhr

¶10The reasoning of the learned Reference Court in various orders, refusing to place reliance Lrpon the said sate deeds, is that the contiguity of the 3 villa.ges with, village Baprola would be no ground to treat the price of the land in the said sale dee.ds as reflected of the marlcet valure of land'.in village Baprola for the reason if the principle of contigurity is to be applied, entire Dei'hi would become one unit. Page 3 of8 ,'ry : . 1' j.irtnl ii -., {iir"7' It'r' .J; i { LA.App.No .13/2007 t .,,- t'll r .lt r' rll l:ili rll 'ill ill i:li "!i 'li ;;il ..rl lil $ "ii :il :ij.{i , ti ili ;'t il il :r : ,,: fItSl 'q$ I I /> Different reasons have been given by the learnpd Reference Court not to re|y upon the agreement to sell, Ex.P\A/. UlwhereunderforthedateIT.B.lgg6,l2bigha.andl0biswa oflandinvi|lageBapro|aWasagreedtobesolc|fort24lacs per acre. , learned Reference Court, to hues of the view in the 72, ' The reasoning of the The statecl part sale consideration in. sum of t6 lacs was paid in cash. the agreement to sell and to be refunded in sum of ';

(ii) The buYer did not enforce the parties settled for tl-re amount ' {8.5 tacs in cash, a student at the time of the evidence of his having' anY

(iii) The purchaser was I cumLllatively re.ad; with reference various imPugned orders is:- transaction and there was no i' t source of income' .(iv).Nostep5weretalcento.obtainnoobjection certificates from the income tax or the revenue a,uthorities.

13.Cumu.lativeeffectaforesaidofthe4circumstances, would be, as per the different process 6f 'reasoning adopted' ' that the transaction is shrouded with suspicion and thus would not be a safe guiding index to determine the fair market value of land in village BaProla '14. While enhancing the compensation' the learned -ReferenceCourthasadoptedtheprice,notedbythe Government, being the minimum price for agricultr-rral land in De|hianddepressingtheSameforcateg,oryBlandandulithoutt depressingtheSamefor'CategoryAIand,enhancedthe LA.ApP.ir{o .1312007 fage 4 of8

i) t? tompensationbygivingprice.rise@::2o/.p.a.ont|reminimufft. price as notified' ^L-r^,n,rtr-t rrFCr. , 15. Learned counsel for tlre appellants would urge that aperusalofthemapoftlrecityofDelhiwouldrevealthatas WeproceeofromthecityofDelhitowardsthetownshipof RohtakatongNH-lo,villagetvlundkaiscrossed;.thelandSof .villagetqundl.uaoutNH'-l0.ThemapofDelhiwoulcl'further showt[atNajafgarhroad,IeaclingtoDelhifromDlransahits NH-l0.nearDayaBasti,Toputitdifferently,asNH-l0croSSeS. DayaBasti,NajafgarhroadbranchesQut;thepointforminga ,V" . 16. ln between Najafgarh road and NH-10' the space /betweenthe,V,has'variousvil|ages.ThevillagegfNi|othi, Baprola,MundkaandBakarwalaarelocatedinthesaidSpace. Standing,qnNdjafgarhroadandlookingstraighttowardsthe North,W€finclthatfirstinthe|ineisvillageBaprolafoliowed-bythetandsofvillageBakaiwalaandthenthelandofvillage Mundka' ln other words; whereas lands of viltage Baprola would .be near Ndjafga'rh road, proceeding along a straight Iine intheNortherndirectionwouldbeagricuttura|.!unqofvilIage Bal<arwalaandfinaltythelandin.vi|lageMundkaandthese lands would abut NH-10 , - r..^^rana ..,f lT.lnotherwordsthe|ocationaladvantageof|a.nds.in vi|lageMundkawou|dbethattheyabutNH-lO.ThelocationaI /advahtageoftheIandsinvi||ageBaprolawouIdbethattlior"rgh notexactlyabuttingNajafgarhroad,they?reextrenlely proximatetoNajafgarhroad.BeingtowardsNajafgar.h.road, |andsinvil|ageBapr|aareneartheurbanized.partofo"'n..,^ LA.APP.No '1312007 Page 5 ofE ' itltt rSS 1ti'i:'1. : ;ed ' i. .,6 l't ttir ffi ;tt,f# tr# K ii{ i*l ffi it{ ?St ,fi ffi '. L !E ;i 1'l ffi $ ,^ii .. 7 ";ri, 4,1.ii/ lrjll ,,;)i\:, , ,, 1 : l::rtit 1i,. ': raii.+ti',, ,l I,rJ,' '.irn € ..; ,:r{ I ! , L.tf} t a -\ / and I note that the residential colonY Qf Vikas Puri abuts the agricultural lands of village Baprola. -[lrus,-the reasoning of the learned Reference Court 18,

¶19pertaining to not relying. upon the sale deeds of villages Nilothi, Mundka and Najafgarh does trot appeqr to be sound for the reason flre learned Reference Court has not consicJered tlre topology of the area in its totality and has failed to appreciate' that villages Baprola, Nilothi; Mundka and Najafgarh are between the 'V' constituted by NH-10 and Najafgarh road. However, it may be noted that small parcels ad- .l I measuring l bigha and 3 biswa, l bigha and'l biswa . / respectively, were sold under the sale deeds Ex.PW-1/1, Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-U3. The principles of'a sampling would guide the Court that to be a repiesentative of the whole, a sample must bear a reasonable proximation to the whole and if the sample is too meagei, it would be a sample ipproPerlv so called and not a sample properly so called, ''

¶20. Thus, not for the reasoning of the learnec Reference CourL, but for my reasoning hereinbefore noted, I hold that it woul4 be unsafe to determine. the marlcet value of agricultural lands in village Baprola with reference to the said 3 sale cjeeds.

¶21As regards the agreement to sell Ex'PW-1/4', I . accoid my concurrence with. the reasoning of tlu learned '*"r"ru.nce Courtr it is sound ald logical. For the.4 features . pertain1ng to the said agreement ito gell, as .extracted' '; hereinabove, I hold that it would be most unsafe to rely upon' Ex.PW-1/4 to determine the fair market value of lands in J'.: Li' . $' ,l tsl rYljl I.t r r!.: I It' : : "t Page 6 ofE village Baprola LA.App.No .1312007 t/. /( /P ,L sion dated B ,7.2011, deciding a batch. of

¶22Land In my deci Acquisition Appea ls, lead matter being' enhanced statutorY Page 7 of8 t' LA.App,N o.78412.005 lamna. vL uol & ors,, pertaining to a notification datecl 25 .2.7997, fair market value of category A lands in village Mundka was determined at tl1,97,162/0 per acre ancl for category B lancls the same was determined at {9,65,3"61.60 Per a"cre. i

¶23. I have already held lrereinabove that the topology of the area would-entitle equivalence of agricutltural lands in village Mundka with village .Ba.lcarwala as also the instant village, BaProla.

¶24since categorization of the lands has not been questioned, thus I hold that for the acquired lancls irr village' Baprola, pertaining to the notification dated 12.8'1997, fair market value of land could safely be assessed with reference to the decision in lqmnA's case (supra) and by gt'anting L0% increase in.the value of the land, commencing 25'2'L99i ' being.the ;rotification with wlrich I was concerne d. in hmDa's case (supra), instant notification being 12'B;!997 ' the increased fair. market value of land peftaining to category A lands is.{12,52,264.30 per acre and for category B lands the same is't10,61,899.50 Per acre.

25..,Theappealsstanddisposedofdecreieingthatfor such lands as have been put in category A (Block A) the compensation stands clecreed in sum of {1"2,52,264"30 per icre and for such lahds which are in category g-(glock A)' compensation decreed is {10,61,899'50 per acre'

¶26lt is'further decreed that oh the compensation the appellants wouid be entitled to all LA.App.No .1312007 'r .\ IitI t'il | fill |tft t,illl t tlr. tIl i rt I nl I El tql[{l Irl lilni!l ' Ftl ffil fttl lill i1l r'tl itil , lil tl ,il rS lil t,ll'll*l I ;li;l .',1 1tl L,t rl ;1.,1 I :ll ::l I i;l l..l i';l't ,.1li i,,l 'bl 11 { '&t l',1il il r!tfii.i t1 i. l il lji:i I''i i,l 't'-l iiill; ,n ,6,i Iri i$q t. Ii; i' i:l': : :11 ii iri'i /7 benefits as per statute as clarified in the decision.reported as 93 (2001) DLT 569 Sunder Vs. UOlexcept such appeals which were filed belatedly and delay was condoned; said appellants would not be entitled to interest for the period of delay. Proportionate cost is also decreed in favour of the appellants. 'f-r--'=r'-:-]e.r-1 e( (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE JULY 15, 2011 mm LA.App.No.I312007 Page 8 of B I, IN THT HIGH COUR-T LA,APP. L3I2OO7 ROSHAN LAL Through: oF DEI_t-il AT NEW DELI-II .....Appellant Nemo. verSus UOt & ORS Through: Nemo ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG ORDER o/o

20.L2.20LL . Perused the office note: lt is correct that in para 25 cf ttte judgment dated july 15, 2011 a typographical error has crept in. Reference to'Block A' (after Category B) in the fourth line is incorrect. ?-; lt is clarified that para 2.5 of the judgment dated Jrrly t5, 2011 shall read as under:- "25. The appeals stand disposed of decreeing that for suclr lands as have been put in category A (Block A) the compensation stands decreed in sum of ' {12,52,264.30 per acre and for such lands which are in category B (Block B), compensation decreed is {l-0,61,899.50 Per acre." J )

PRADEEP NANDRAioc, J. DfCFF'ltsER 20, 20L1 rk

$-4 rr^. r ^Ar rh- nr hEr rrr AT irEl,., l'rtrl lJl I IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI / + LA.APP. L6I2OO7 MAHENDER SINGH ""'Appellant Through: Nemo. VCTSUS UOI & ORS. . '... ResPondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MRJUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG