Jaipal Singh v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER

23.12.2011 For orders see LA.APP No. 608 of 2009. [L GAUR) JUDGE December 23, 2011 rs LA.App No.608/2009 & Connectedmatters Page 2 + THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW % • Rp.servedon: November,2011 Pronouncedon: 23"^December,2011_ f.A.AFP No.608/2009 SHRlRAMESHKUMAR - •-Appellant ' Through: Mr. Deepak. Khosla & Mr. V.P. Rana, Advocates. versus UNIONOF INDIA &ORS. •••••Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Podar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Ms. K.Kamoudi Kiran, Mr. Mohitrao Jadhav & Ms. Navlin Swain, Advocates. AND + 1,A APP.415/2011.FA.APP 608/2009,LA.APP129/2010JAAPP 130/2010. LA.APP 176/20.10 & CM No. 12873/20IL^LAAj^T 177/2010. LA.APP 179/2010. LA.AP? 184/2010, LA.APP 214/20jXL LA.APP219/2010. LA.APP 229/2010. LA.APP233/2010, LA./VPP 234/2010. LA.APP 235/2010. LA.APP 236/2010. LA.^VPP 237/2010, LA.APP 240/2010. LA.APP 241/2010. LA.APP 255/2010, LA.APP 256/2010 & CM No. 12934/2011(cross obiections).LA.APP 257/2010, LA.APP258/2010. LA. APP 259 /2010. LA.APP 271/2010, LA.AP? 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,APT- •; ^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 77.0/2011, LA.APP 771/2010, LA.APP 772/2010. LA.APP 773/2010. LA.APP 774/2010, LA.APP 775/2010, LA.App No.608/2009&Connectedmatters Page 1 ISi#'-' hV-' • 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.APP 1032/2010,LA.APP 1035/2010.LA.APP 1037/2010. LA.APP 1038/2010 & CM No.12952/2^11 fcross-obiectionsl LA.APP 1039/201Q,-CCM. No.12875/2011^ CM No.12876/2011 (cross obiections),<U.AJLPP 154/^iDt:AAPP158/2011. LA.APP 274/2011.'LA.APP368/2011, :^P 379/2011. LA.APP 384/2011 & LA.APP 411/2011 (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) COliAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER • ' 2312.2011

¶1The above captionedappeals arise out of Award No.19/97-98 of the concerned Land Acquisition Collector pertaining to the agricultural land in the revenue estate of Village-Shahpur Garhi, Delhi, which v/as .acquiredby the respondentvide Notificationof 5*^'^ April, 1995 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The market price of the acquired land in question Avas determined by the Land Acquisition Collector@ ^"8,01,600/-per acre or @ ^1,67,000/-per bigha.

¶2In the Reference sought under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the claimants/ land owners i.e. the appellants, the 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, appellantshave,come up in these appeals to seek much higher compensation i.e. enhanced compensation @ ?100/- per square • yard. I

¶3For development of ;Freight Complex in Narela Project, vide Notificationof 5"' April, 1995, under Section4 of the Land Acquisition LA.App No.608/2009 & Connected matters Page 2 v-;'' •; jii il • Act, a largearea of agriculturallandmeasuring733 bighasand 10 biswas ot Village-ShahpurGarhi, Delhi was acquiredby the respondents.The lactual 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 isnotrequiredto berecapitulated.

¶4Before the Reference Court, assessment of the market value of the acquiredland in questionwas soughton the basis ofDDA predetermined rate of the year 1992-93 pertainingto Narela Residential Scheme and on the strengthofDSIDCapprovedlandrate for allotmentofplots in Narela IndustrialComplex, which stands negated in the impugnedorder while relying upon decision of the Apex Court in Union of India Kv. Ra.m ^ Phool (2003) 10 see 167. On the aspectof potentialityof the acquired land in question being near the developed land. Reference Court has extensivelyrehed upon DivisionBench decisionof this Court in Gajraj Singh Vs. Union of India 2006 VI AD (Delhi) 13 in maintaining enhancement@11.5% from the effectivedate of governmentpolic}/ of fixing minimum price of agriculturallands in Delhi, till Notification under Section4 of the,Land AcquisitionAct was issued.Notingthat the boundary of Village-Shahpur Garhi touches the boundary of Village-HolambiKalan, ReferenceCourtinthe impugnedjudgmenthas assessed the compensationin the instant case on the basis of the compensation, assessedby this Court jn GajrajSingh (Supra)relatingto Notificationof 15"' November, 1996,iunder Section4 of Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, pertaining to Village —Holambi Kalan.

¶5In these appeals,at the final hearing,the counselspresenton behalf ofthe appellantsas well as seniorcounselfor the respondentswere heard' and with their assista ce, the impugned judgment and the record was LA.App No. 608/2009 & Conn cted matters Page 3 l\ ••'i / • perused. Since tiie submissions advanced by botli the sides in these appealswere common,therefore,with the consentof learnedcounselfor 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 behalf of the appellants. These are:'- 'i) That LAC has given very low rate of market value though the land of the petitioner has got potential value as the land of the petitioner is surrounded by the biggest colony of Asia namely Rohini and the land was acquired for the commercial activities;

ii) • that LAC has not taken into consideration that land has been acquired for commercial activities 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 NareTa and DSIDC Complex due to which his land has more potential value;

iv) that land of the petitioner is between two roads including a national highway i.e. Government Kama! Road, and Delhi Narela Road, therefore, it has great potentiality for residential and commercial purposes; that palatial farm house has been constructed in the same revenue estate in which land of the petitioner has been situated;

v) that land of the petitioner' is fully developed and has all the modern facilities/ necessities i.e. telephone, electric, connection, water supply, publit schools and SSN College and most frequent service of DTC buses and other private transport.'

¶7In substance, aforesaid grounds are the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants before this Court to challenge the impugned order of the Reference Court. Undisputedly, the land use of the acquired land in LA.App No.608/2009&Connectedmatters ^ Page4 vi-question Avas agriculturalat the time of issuance of Notificationunder Section4 of Land AcquisitionAct in question.The main groundto seek enhancementof compensationput forth on behalf of the appellantsis the potential value of the land in question. Though the stand of the appellants herein before the Reference Court was-that the land in question is strategically located from the commercial and industrial point of view, 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 market value and potentiality, as it has been acquired for the development of Rohini Residential Scheme.

¶8Appellants claim that acquired land is in close proximity of Industrial Area developed by DSIDC and residential colony developed by DDA, and they rely upon Letter of Allotment (EX. PW-l/A) of a plot in Narela Industrial Complex @ ^650/- per square meter in the year 1990 by DSIDC. It is also claimed by the appellants that allotment of alternate plot under the Narela Residential Scheme by DDA in the year 1992-93, was avail£tble@ ^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 impugned judgment that the land of the villages adjoining the village in question, including village-Holainbi Kalan, has been acquired for the development of industrial area and Narela residential area in Narela. Conceding that the acquiredland is in proximityof the industrialarea developedby DSIDC, learnedsenior counsel for the respondenthas clarified that the purposeof acquisitionof the land in questionis solelyfor the developmentof freight complex in Narela. However, it was disputed that the acquired land in ggiEgcinsstcgig LA.App No.608/2009 & Connectedmatters Page 5 ..•V,v .V question is surrounded by any developed .colony and thus, it was contended that the appellants cannot claim enhancement of tlie compensation by relying upon the rate of land in Narela Industrial Complexor underthe NarelaResidentialSchemefloatedby DDA. In this regard reliance was placed upon the decisionof the Apex Court in Lai Chand Vs. Union of India & Ann (2009) 15 SCC 769. Reliance v/as also placed upon a decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in LA.APP 266/2008 Jai Singh Ky.. Union of India, Ani\ , rendered on I'd August, 2011, wherein in relation to this village, pertainingto an acquisition of land vide Notification of 16"' May, 2002, amount of compensationwas determined at '^i'8,65,500/-per acre while relying upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Gajraj Singh Fs, 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 pertaining to acquisition of the land of the adjoining village-Holainbi Kalan, in relation to Notification of 15"' November, 1996, die compensation determined was @ ?9,7(5,121/- per acre for A Category land and @^9,51,121/- per acre for B Category land.

¶11Reference Court has rightly concluded that grounds of challenge •laid to the Award, as noted in paragraph No.6 herein above, against the Award in question, remains unsubstantiated by the appellants.

¶12While relying upon two decisions of the Apex Court in Bhim Singh Vs. State of Haryana

(2003) 10 SCC 529 & Union of India Vs. 'Ram Phool (2003) 10 SCC 167, claim of the appellants to apply DDA and DSIDC rates to the land in question stands repelled by holding that no willing purchaser would buy agricultural land in question at the rate on which government is allotting developed land. LA.App No.608/2009 & Connected matters Page (5

¶13During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellants were not able to show that the aforesaid decisions are inapplicable nor any decision to the contrary was cited, hifact, Apex Court' in its recent decision in Lai Chand Vs. Union'of India (2009) 15 SCC 769 has reiterated in no uncertain terms 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 methodsfor determination ,ofmarketvalue iswith referenceto the opinionofexperts. The estimation of market value by such statutorily constituted Expert Committees,as expert evidencecan thereforefonn the basis for determining the market value in land acquisition cases, as a relevantpiece of evidence. It will be howeveropen to eitherparty to place evidence to dislodge the presumption that mayflowfrom such guideline market value. We, however, hasten to add that the guideline rnarketvalue can be a relevant piece of evidence only if they are assessed by statutorily appointed Expert Committees, in accordance with the prescribed assessment procedure (either streetwise, or roadwise, or areawise, or villagewise) and finalized after invitingobjectionsand published in the gazette. Be that as it may.

¶48Even ifthe relied upon transaction is only tM>o to three years prior to the acquisition, the Court should, before adoptinga standard escalation,satisfyitselftha.tthere were no adverse circumstances.For example, if the acquisitionis of the year 2009, it may not bepossible to determine the market value, based on the. 2007 or 2008 prices, by providingan increaseof 12% or 15% per year, as the neM'spaperreports disclose that the price of immovableproperties in most areas of the countrycame down by more than 40% to 50% from, the 2007 rates. Caution is therefore necessarybefore increasing the price M'ith reference to the old transactions. Be that as it may. It is clear that the award made in regard to a 1961 acquisitionMnll not be of any use for determiningthe market valuefor a 1981 acquisition.' LA.App No.608/2009&Connectedmatters Page 7 •\r fete#''•;

¶14The aforesaiddecisionofthe AjdcxCourtinLaiSingh (Supra),has been followedby a CoordinateBenchofthis Courtin Jai Singh (Supra), which also applies on all fours in these matters as 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.Ithas to be kept in mind that the land in questionhas beenacquiredfor developmentofthe freightcomplexand not for the developmentofa residentialarea. 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 AcquisitionCollectorand not to adopt the.ratioof decisionin Gajraj(Supra), are found to be withoutsubstance for the reason that undisputedlyGajraj (Supra) has attainedfinalityand becauseit has not been shown by the,respondentsas to how this decision of the Division Bench 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 acquiredland in question,

¶17•Since the decision,of the DivisionBench of this case in Gajraj (Supra), has attained finality and it is the basis of the decision of a >CpoidinateBenchofthis CourtinJai Singh (Supra), and is also the basis of the impugned order, therefore,I find no infirmityin the impugnisd order, adoptingthe rate of compensationas fixed by DivisionBench of this Court in Gajraj (Supra),in the matterofadjoiningvillage-Holambi LA.AppNo.608/2009&Connectedmatters Page 8 Kalan. Even the reductionofthe rate 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,Ifind the sameto be in conformityAviththe decisionin Gajraj (Supra), wherehi annual compounding @11.5% has been approved.

¶18As .neither side could find fault m the impugned judgment determiningthe marketvalue of the land in question@?8,16,720/-per acre, therefore,the appealsofthe claimantas well as cross-objectionsof the respondentsare dismissed,with no order as 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 RegistrarGeneralof this Court, to the concerned Reference Court. December 23, 2011 rs LA.AppNo.608/2009&Connectedmatters g

% + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 8^^ November, 2011 Pronounced on: 23"^December, 2011 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 objections), 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-objection). 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, LA.APP 1037/2010, LA.APP 1038/2010 & CM No.12952/2011 (cross-objections), 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.l l(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 issuedunderSection4 ofthe 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