Pratap Singh Decd Thr Lrs v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER

23.12.2011 For orders see LA.APP No. 608 of 2009. \1L GAUR) JUDGE December 23,2011 rs LA.AppNo.608/2009 & Connected matters Page 2 % + THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW mELHI Reservedon: 8^^'November.2011 Pronouncedon:.23'''^December. 2011 T.A.AP? No.608/2009 Sl-IRII^MESHKUMAR ' Appellant Through: Mr. Deepak Kliosla 8c Mr. V.P. Rana, Advocates. versus ' . ^ UNIONOF INDIA &ORS. Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Podar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Ms. K.Kainoudi Kiran, Mr. Mohitrao Jadhav. & Ms. Navlin Swain, Advocates, AND + 1,A APP.4]5/2011.LA.APP 608/2009.LA.APP129/201Q.LA.ARP 130/2010. I,A.APP 176/2010 & CM No. 12873/201], LA.AJ^'P 177/2010. LAAPP 179/2010, TAapp 1R4/7.010. I.A.APP 214/2010. LA.APP219/2010. LA.APP 229/2010. LA..APP233/2010. LA./VPP 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. 12934/2011fcross obiections).LA.APP 257/2010, LA:APP258/2010.LA. APP 259 /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 ohiections). LA.APP 419/2010. LA.APP 425/2010. LA.APP 453/2010. LA.APP 546/2010. LAAPP 547/2010. LA.APP 548/2010. LA.APP 549/2010. LA.APP 550/2010. LA.APP 551/2010 LA.APP 552/2010. LA.APP 553/20_10. 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, I.A.APP 569/2010. LA.APP .570/2010. T.A 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 77fl/2011. LA.APP 771/2010, LA.APP 772/2010. LA.APP 773/2010. LA.APP 774/2010. LA.APP 77.5/2010, LA.App No.608/2009 & Connected matters Page 1 ••• Ip'•vV.i' LA.APP 805/2010. LA.APP 822/2010. LA.APP 824/2010 & CM No.10333/2011 Ccross-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.12952/2011 Ccross-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^27^011.'LA.APP368/2011. LA.APP 379/2011. LA.APP 384/2011 & LA.APP 411/2011 (;^clating to NotificationNo. F.No.ll(36)/94-L&B/LA/5722dated 5 Xpri], 1995 issuedunder Section4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & XlwardNo. 19/97-98,Village-ShahpurGarhi,Delhi) eON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR Ih

23.12.2011 ']. The above captionedappeals arise out of Award No.19/97-98 of the concernedLand AcquisitionCollectorpertainingto the agricultural land in the revenue estate of Village-Shahpur Garhi, Delhi, which was .acquiredby the respondentvide Notificationof 5^'' April, 1995 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The mai-ket price of the acquired land in question was determined by the Land Acquisition Collector@?B,01,600/-per acre or @?1,67,000/-per bigha.

¶2In the Reference sought under Section 18 of tlie Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the claimants/ land owners i.e. the appellants, the Reference Court has enhanced the compensation to ?8,16,720/- per acre. Not satisfied with the aforesaid enhancement of ^15,120/- per acre for the acquired land, appellantshave.comeup 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, 1995, under Section4 of the Land Acquisition LA.App No.608/2009&Connectedmatters ' Page 2 • • .1 •"I •I • !; Act, a largeareaofagriculturallandmeasuring733 bighasand 10 biswas ol Village-ShahpurGarhi, Delhi was acquiredby the respondents.The lactual details disclosing as to how in pursuance to the aforesaid Notification,AwardNo. 19/97-98came to be passedand the substanceof the evidenceled beforethe ReferenceCourtstandsnoted in the impugned judgmentand is not requiredto be recapitulated.

¶4Before the Reference Court, assessment of the market vaiue of the acquiiedland in questionwas soughton the basis ofDDA predetermined rate of the year 1992-93 pertainingto Narela ResidentialScheme and on the strengthofDSIDC approvedland rate for allotmentofplots in Narela IndustrialComplex, which stands negated in the impugned order while relying upon decision of the Apex Court in [/mon of India Vs. Ram. Phooi (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 decisionof this Court in Gajrai Singh Vs. Union of India 2006 VI AD (Delhi) 13 in maintaining enhancement(§11.5% from the effective date of governmentpolicy of fixing minimum price of agricultural lands in Delhi, till Notification under Section'4 of the Land AcquisitionAct was issued.Noting that the boundary of Village-Shahpur Garhi touches the boundary of Village-HolambiKalan, ReferenceCourt in the impugnedjudgment has assessed the compensationin the instant case on the basis of the compensation, assessedby this Courtin GajvajSingh (Supra)relatingto Notificationof 15"' November, 1996, under Section 4 of Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, pertaining to Village - Holambi Kalan.

¶5In these appeals,at the final hearing,the counselspresenton behalf of the appellantsas well as seniorcounselfor the respondentswere heard and with their assistance, the impugned judgment and the record was LA.AppNo.608/2009&Connectedmatters Page3 I . I" V ' f perused. Since the submissions advanced by both the sides in these appeals were common, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, these appeals and cross-objections are being decided by this common order.

¶6The grounds of cliallenge 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 npt 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 Narela 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. Govermnent Karna[ 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, 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 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 & Connected matters Page 4

(i) ^ • • question was agricultural at the time of issuance of Notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act in question. The main ground to seek enhancement of compensation put forth on behalf of the appellants is 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 aiid industrial point of view, as it is just two kilometres away from Nai-ela 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 available @ ?650/- per square meter as per demand cum allotment letter (EX. PW2/1). Thus, seeldng 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-Holambi 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, learned senior counsel for the respondenthas clarified that the purpose of acquisitionof the land in questionis solelyfor the developmentof freight complex in Narela. However, it was disputed that the acquired land in LA.AppNo.608/2009 & Connected matters I'age 5 p question is surrounded by any developed .colony and thus, it was contended that the appellants camiot claim enhancement of the compensation by relying upon the rate of land in Narela Industrial Complexor undertlieNarelaResidentialSchemefloatedbyDDA. In this regard reliance was placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in £af Chand Vs. Union of India & Anr. (2009) 15 SCC 769. Reliance was also placed upon a decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in LA.APP 266/2008 Jai Singh Vs. Union of India S. Anr, , rendered on 23*^^' August, 2011, wherein in relation to this village, pertainingto an acquisition of laiid vide Notification of 16^'' May, 2002, amount of compensation was determined at ^18,65,500/- per acre while relying upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Gajraj Singh Vs. Unio}^ ofIndia 2006 IV AD (Delhi) 13.

¶10Even in tlie 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-Holamhi Kalan, in relation to Notification of 15^'^ November, 1996, the compensation determined was @ ^9,76,121/- per acre for A Category land and @?9,51,121/- per acre for^ Categoiy land.

¶11Reference Court has rightly concluded that grounds of challenge [aid 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 ofIndia Vs. •Kani 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 laiid in question at the rate on which government is allotting developed land. LA.App No.608/2009 & Connected matters Page 6 d)

¶13During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellants were not able to show that tlie 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 tlie 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 (Siipro), which deserves to be highlighted, ai-e as under:- '44. One of the recognized methodsfor determination ofmarketvalue is with referenceto the opinionofexperts. The estimation of market value by such statutorily constituted Expert Committees,as expert evidence can thereforeform, the basis for determining the market value in land acquisition cases, as a relevantpiece ofevidence. It M>ill be however open to either party to place evidence to dislodge the presumption that mayfl.oM>from such guideline market value. We, however. hasten to add that the guideline market value can be a relevant piece of evidence only if they are assessed by statutorily appointed Expert Committees, in accordance M>ith • the prescribed assessment procedure (eitiier streetwise, or roadwise, or areawise, or villagewise) and finalized after inviting objections and published in the gazette. Be that as it may.

¶48Even if the relied upon transaction is only Pivo to three years prior to the acquisition, the Court should, before adoptinga standard escalation,satisfyitselfthat there wereno adverse circumstances.For example, if the acquisitionis 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 newspaperreports disclose that theprice of immovableproperties in most areas of the countiycame 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 ayvard made in regard to a 1961 acquisition Mnll not be of any usefor determining the market valuefor a 1981 acquisition.' LA.AppNo.608/2009&Connectedmatters Page 7 li ' N;5' * ' .•/ i>' • (3

¶14The aforesaiddecisionofthe Apex Courtin LaiSingh (Supra),has been followedby a CoordinateBenchofthis Courtin JaiSingh (Supra), whichalso 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.It has to be kept in.mindthat the land in questionhas been acquiredfor developmentoftlie freightcomplexand not for the developmentofaresidentialarea. Exceptthe oral assertionof the appellants/claimantsthat the acquiredland is for tlie developmentof the RohiniResidentialArea, tliereis no tangibleevidenceto establishthis factual assertion.

¶16Cross objectionsfded by the respondentsto maintainthe rate of compensationfixed by the Land AcquisitionCollector'and not to adopt the ratio of decisionin Gajraj(Supra), are found to be withoutsubstance for the reason that undisputedlyGajraj (Supra) has attainedfinalityand bccauseit has not been shown by the respondentsas to how this decision of the Division Bench of this Court has been wrongly applied b}' the ReferenceCourt to the facts of the instantcases. Radier, I fmd that the ReferenceCourthas correctlyreliedupon the decisionin Gajraj(Supra), to arriveat the correctmarketvalueofthe acquiredland in.question.

¶17Since the decision of the Division Bench-ofthis case in Gajraj (Supra), has attained finality and it is the basis of the decision of a CooidinateBenchofthis Courtin Jai Singh (Supra),and is also the basis ol the impugned order, therefore,I find no infirmityin the impugned order, adoptingthe rate of compensationas fixed by DivisionBench of this Court in Gajraj(Supra),in the matterofadjoiningvillage-Holarnbi LA.App No.608/2009 & Connected matters Page 8 fe;.. ft'-;?.,.' •"• Kahn. Even the reductionofthe rate ofcompensationassessed@11.5% compoundinterestfrom the date ofNotificationof 15"' November, 1996 in Gajraj(Supra) to date ofNotificationof S"' April, 1995 in the instant case IS concerned,I fmd the same to be in conformitywith the decisionin Gajraj (Supra), wherein annual compounding @11.5% has been approved. ,18. As neither side could find fault in the impugned judgment 'ieteimining the marketvalue of the land in question@?8,16,720/-per acre, therefore,the appealsof the claimantas well as cross-objectionsof the respondentsare dismissed,with no orderas to costs.Accordingly,all the above-mentionedappeals and cross-objectionsare disposed of witii direction to the Registiy to remit the compensation amount, if any, depositedby eitherside with the Registrar-Generalof this Court, to the concerned Reference Court. December 23, 2011 JUDGE LA.AppNo.608/2009&Connectedmatters Page 9

% + 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. 12934/201] I ("cross obiections), 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 rcross obiectionsY . 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 55 8/2010, 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 Ccross-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.12952/2011 fcross-obi ections), LA.APP 1039/2010 (CM No. 12875/2011 & CM No. 12876/2011 fcross obiectionsY 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 issuedunder Section4 oftheLand AcquisitionAct, 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