Chandi Devi v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER

23.12.2011 For orders see LA.APP No. 608 of 2009. JUDGE I December 23, 2011 rs ,1 . LA.App No.608/2009 & Connected matters Page 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved giv 8t'7 Nove7iiber, 2011 pronounced on: 23' December, 2011 ± Si--1RI RAMESH KUMAR App1t ant Through: Mr. Deepak Khosla & Mi. V.P. Rana, Advocates. versus U1ON OF INDIA & ORS-. ......Respondents Through: -Mr. Sanjay Podar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kurnar Pathak, Ms. K.Kanioudi Kiran, Mr. Mohitrao Jadhav & Ms. Naviin Swain, Advocates. AND + 1A APP.415/2011, LA4PP 608/2009,.LA.APP 129/ 10/10LA:APP 176/2010 & CM No. 1287 AAf 172L010LA.P 179/2010, LA.P 234/2010, LA.APP-235/2010, _6/2010 _- . IA AlT 237 010 . . ..LA.P .- 240/2010, LA.AP 241/2010, LA.APP 255i20LMJ 256/2010 & CM No. 12934/2011 (cross objec-tions) LAP2( 1 Q-I LA.APP258/2010, -LA. APP 259 /2010, LA.AP 413/2010, LA.APP 414/2010, LA.APP LA.APP - 417/2010 & CM No.3584/2011 (cross octiop1A1 • 49/2010,LA.APP 5/2010, LA.APP 45 10' 2010, - . - 010, LA.APP 551/2010, LA.APJ 552/2010, LAJ-j.IQJ±h LA.APP 554/2010, L A.APP 555/2O1O LAPP56Qt 557/2010, LA.APP 558/2010, LA.AP559(201O LAA1?P - . - LA.APP 569/2010, LA.Ai iQL2Qh' 57 1/201L?:PJkt L01t - - - 572/2010, LA.APP 573/2010 LA.APY 574/2010, LA.APP- - - . - . 772/2010, LA.APP 773/2010 LA.APP774/20l0, P age LA.App No.608/2009 & Connected matters - LA.APP 805/2010, LA.APP .822/2010, LA.APP 824/2010 &CM No.10333/2011 (cross-objection), LA.APP 864/2010, LA.APP 90 1/2OiQ, LA.AIP 902/2010, LA.APP 962/2010, LA.APP 1014/2010, LA.ALPI 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 368/20Li LA.APP 379/2011, LA.APP 384/2011 & LA.APP 411/2011 (Relating to Notification No. F.No.1 1(36)/94-L&B/LA/5722 dated 5111 April, 1995 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 19/97-98, Village-Shahpur Garhi, Delhi) CORkM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER

23.12.2011 The above captioned appeals 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 was acquired by the respondent vide Notification of 5 April, 1995 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The market p.rice of the acquired land in questiOn. was determined by the Land Acquisition Collector 8,01,600/- per acre or @ ZI,67,000/- per bigha. In the Reference sought under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1 894 by the clairnants/ land owners i.e.. the appellants, the Reference Court has enhanced the compensation to 8,16,720/- per acre. NQt satisfied with the aforesaid enhancement of15,120/- per acre for the acquired land, appellants have come up in these appeals to seek much higher compensation i.e. enhanced compensation @ ZIOO/- per square yard. For development of Freight Complex in Narela Project, vide Notification of 5111 April, 1995, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition .

. . LA.App No.608/2009 & Connected matters . Page 2 Act, a large area of agricultural land measuring 733 bighas and 10 biswas of Village-Shahpur Garhi, Delhi was acquired by the respondents. The factual details disclosing as to how in pursuance to the afi)resaicl Notification, Award No. 19/97-98 came to be passed and the substance of the evidence led before the Reference Court stands noted in the impugned jLidgment and is not required to be recapitulated.

¶4Before the Reference Coui, assessment of the market value of the acquired land in question was sought on the basis of DDA predetermined rate of the year 1992-93 pertaining to Narela Residential Scherrie and on the strength of DSIDC approved land rate for allotment of plots in Marcia Industual Complex, which stands negated in the impugned order whie relying upon decision of the Apex Court in Union of India i's. Rain PIiooI (2003) 10 SCC 167. On the aspect of potentiality of the acquired land in question being neai the developed land, Rcfeicnce Couit has extensively relied upon Division Bench decision of this Court in Sing/i Vs Union of India 2006 VI AD (Delhi) 13 in niautlaining enhancement @1 1.5% from the effective date of government policy of • fixing minimum price of agricultural lands in Delhi, till Notificatin under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued. Noting that tie boundary of Village-Shahpur Garhi touches the boundary of Vil.iag-ifolambi Kalan, Reference Court in the impugned judgment has assessed the compensation in the instant case on the basis of the compensation. assessed by this Court in Gajraj Sing/i Supra relating to Notification 15111 November, 1996, under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 189, pertaining to Village - Holambi Kalan. H

¶5In these appeals, at the final hearing, the counsels Present on behalf of the appellants as well as senior counsel for the respOndents were heard and with their assistance, the impugned judgment and the record was LA.App No.608/2009 & Connected matters Page 3 1_3 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 challenge to the Award of Lan.d 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 thecommercial activities; that LAC has not taken into consideration that • land has been acquired for commercial activities such (I as for setting of freight complex, therefore, market value of the land should be fixed at the rate of Rs.5000!- per sq.meter. that his land is situated quite close to the fl residential area of Narela and DSIDC Complex due to which his land has more potential value; that land of the petitioner ; 5 between two roads including a national highway i.e. Government KarnaL Road, and Delhi Narela Road, therefore, it has greaL potentiality for residential and commercial purposes; that ipalatial farm house has been constructed in the same revenue estate in which land of the petitioner has been situated; 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.'

¶7• in substance, aforesaid gr'ounds are the submissions advanced on bha1f of the appellants before this Court to challenge the impugned or(ieT of the Reference Court. Undisputedly, the land use of the acquired land LAApp No.608/2009 & Connected matters Page 4 • question was agricultural at the time of issuance of Notification undei, 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 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 pint in Narela industrial Complex @ 650/ per square meter in the year 1990 by I)SIDC. It is also claimed by the appellants that allotment of alternate plot Linder 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, seeking parity with aforesaid rates of developed lands, enhancement in compensation is soughtby the appellants. S

¶9On the • factual aspect, it stands noted in the impugned judgment that the land of the villages adjoining the village in question, including village-1-lolainbi Kalan, has been acquired for the development of industrial area and Narela residential area in Narela.. Conceding that the acquired land is in proximity of the industrial area developed by DSIDC, learned senior counsel for the respondent has clarified that the purpose of • acquisition of the land in question is solely for the development of•feiglt complex in Narela. 1-lowever, it was disputed that the acquired land in LA.App No.60812009 & Connected matters • Pige 5 7 . '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 industria.l Complex or under the Narela Residential Scheme floated by DDA. In this regard reliance was placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in La! cluind 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 Sing/i Vs Union of India & Anr, rendered on Ill August, 2011, wherein in relation to this village, pertaining to an acquisition of land vide Notification of 16tt May, 2002, amount of compensation was determined at 18,65,500/- per acre while relying upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Ga/ra/ Sing/i Vs. Union of India 2006 IV AD (Delhi) 13. Even 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-Hoicunbi Ku/an, in relation to Notification of 15th November, 1996, the compensation determined was @ Z9,76,121/- per acre for A Category land and @ 9,5 1,121/- per acre for B Category land. Reference Court has rightly concluded, that grounds of challenge 40 laid to the Award, as noted in paragraph No.6 herein above, against the Award in question, remains unsubstantiated by the appellants. While relying upon two decisions of the Apex Court in BIthn Sing/i Vs. State of Haryana (2003) .10 SCC 529 & Union of India V. Rain PIiooI (2003) 10 SCC 167, claim of the appellants to apply DDA and 1)SIDC 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.60812009 & Connected matters Pige 6 N;- 1 3. During 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.. Infact, .Apex Court in its recent decision in La! ('hand Vs. Union of India (2009) 15 SC'C 769 has reiterated in no uncertain terms that the rates for a1lotmnt of developed land by the DDA cannot be the basis for calculation of the market value of the acquired undeveloped lands. The pe1inen.t observations made in paragraphs No.44 & 48 in Lal. ('hand ('Supra), which deserves tO be highlighted, are as undei:- '44. One of the recognized methods for determination of market value is with reference to the opinion of experts. The . estimation qf 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.reievant piece of evidence. It will be however open to either party, to place evidence to dislodge the presumption that may flow 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 stat utorliy appointed Expert Committees, in accordance with the prescribed assessment pro cedtire (either streetwise, or roadwise, or areawise, or villagewise) and finalized ofler znvltlng objections and published in the gazette. Be that as it may.

¶48Even if the relied upon transaction is only two to three years prior, to the acquisition, the Court should, before adopting a standard escalation, satisfy itse?f that there were 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, bj providing an • increase of 12% or 15% per year, as the newspaper reports disclose that the price of immovable properties in most areas of the cointry 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. value Jar a 1981 acquisition. ' LA.App No.608/2009 & Connected rnatt,ers Page 7 The aforesaid decision of thè.Apex Court in La/Sing/i Supia, has been 'followed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Jai Sing/i (Supra,, which also applies on all fours in these matters as well. On the potentiality aspect, neither the map / sizra (EX. PW3/A) nor any other evidence, establishes that apatt from the DSIDC, there is any development in the vicinity of the acquired land. As already observed above, no sale instances of the nearby area are forthcoming to depict the potentiality of the area in question. It has to be kept in mind that the Ia iid in question. has been acquired for developmeit of the freight complex and not for the development of a residential area. Except th oral assertion of the appellants/ claimants that the acquired land is for the development of the Rohini Residential Area, there is no tangible evidence to establish this factual assertion. Cross objections filed by the respondents to maintain the rate of compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector and not to adopt the ratio of deôision in Gajraj Supra, are found to be without substance for the reason that undisputedly Gajraj Supra has attained fina:lity and because it has not been shown by the respOndents as to how this decision of the Division Bench of this Court has been wrongly applied by the Reference Court to the facts of the instant cases. Rather, I find that the Reference Court has correctly relied upon the decision in Gajraj (Supra), to arrive at the correct market value of the acquired land in question. 'Since the decision of the Division Bench of this case in Gajraj Supr), has attained finality and it is the basis of the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Jai Sing/i Supra, and is also the basi; of the impugned order, therefore, I find no infirmity in the inipugnecE order, adopting the rate of compensation as fixed by Division Bench of this Court in Gajraj Supra., in the matter of adjoining village-Hotombi LA.App No. 60812009 & Connected matters ' Page 8 '• // L / Ka/an. Even the reduction of the rate of compensation assessed @11.5 0/0 compound interest from the date of Notification of 151h November, 1 996 in Ga/raj Supra) to date of Notification of 5' April, 1995 in the instant case is concerned, I find the same, to be in conformity with the decision in Gajnij Suprc, wherein annual compounding @11.5% has been 'approved.

¶18As neither side could find fault in the impugned judgment determining the market value of the land in question @8, 16,720/- per acre, therefore, the appeals of the claimant as well as cross-obj ecti 01111S of the respondents are dismissed, with no order as to costs. Accordingly, all the above-mentioned appeals and cross-objections are disposed of with direction to the Registry to remit the cojllpcl-1 sation amount, if ally, deposited by either side with the Registrar General of this Court, to the concerned Reference Court. UNIL GAUR) ' I JUDGE December 23, 2011 I.s f LA.App Pa ge PA

% IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 8" November, 20]] Pronounced on.' 23 rd December, 20]] LA APP.415/201 1, LA.APP 608/2009, LA.APP 129/20 10, LA.APP I 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 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 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 1.039/2010 (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.i 1(36)/94-1,&B/LA/5722 dated S 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. 5th April, 1995 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 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 KurnarPathak, Ms. K.Kamoudi Kiran, Mr. Mohit Rao Jadhav & Ms. Navlin Swain, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR