Chotte Ram v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER

23.12.2011 For orders see LA.APP No. 608 of 2009. December 23, 2011 rs LA.App No.608/2009 & Connected matters NIL GAUR) JUDGE Page 2 + the high court of DELHIat new ^ ' Rp.sp.rvedon: S"'Noveinber^2Ml ProHouncedon: 23' December,2011, T.A AFF No,608/2009 SHRlKAMESHKUMAR ""v Through; Mr. Deepalc Kliosla & Mr. V.P. R.ina, Advocates, versus UNIONOF INDIA &ORS. Respondents Through; -Mr. Sanjay Podai-, Senior Advocate wil^i Mr Sanjay Kumar-Pathalc. Ms. K.Kainoodr Kiraii, Mr. Mohitrao Jadhav & Ms. Navhn Swain, Advocates. AND nn/onm TAAPP 176/20.10 & CM No. 128.7_3/201I^_LA-AL^ 177/2010.LA.APPJ79201OA:APPJMfi0^ rT7FI^iW2010 T.A.APP 229/2010, LAAFP233/MQ^-J^WAil oiAonin l A.APP 235/2010. LAAPP.Z-'"^^''"^"-lA.APP 237,2^ !5Sp24omiOaSlmimIL^^ 9Sfi/7.010& CM No. 19Q'^4/2011(cross obiections), r A. APP9SR/9niO. T,A APP~^9 /2Q10rLA.APP_271/ma^y^ ^'iV7nin T.A.APP 4U/2010. LA.APP 415/2010.LA:M^2m r AAPP 417/2010 & CM No.3584/2011 (cross obiections), L^ii^ALL dlQ/2ni0; T.AAPP 425/2010. LA APP 451/2010. LA.APFJiegm, I.AAPP 547/2010 TA.APP 54«/90in T.A.APP 549/2010.^A.^.£ 550/2010. LA APP 551/2010. TA.APP 552/2010. LA.APP^jl/,m I.AAPP -i-iAnnin T.AAPP 555/2010. LA.APP 556/2010^/LAn 557/7.010. LA APP 558/2010, T.A APP 559/2010. LA.APP 560/j^]0. r A APTJ 5fi1/?010. TA.APP 562/2010. LA.APP 563/2010. LA.APP 564/7010. LA.APP 5fiS/7010 T.A.APP 567/7010, TA.APP 568/2010, I AAPP 569/7010. LA.APP 570/2010. LAAPP 571/2010. LA.A.FP s77/7ni0 T.AAPP 'i7-»7nin T.A APP 574/2010. LA.APP 575/20m TAAPP 576/7.010. LA.APP 77.0/2011. LA.APP 771/2010. LAAPP 777/7010 T.A.APP 771/7010. TA.APP 774/7010. 'I.A.APPJZ75/7in^ LA.APPNo.608/2009&Connectedmatters i',. LA.APP 805/2010, LA.APP 822/2010, LA.APP 824/2010 & No.10333/2011fcross-obiection'),LA.APP 864/2010,LA.APP 901/2010_, LAAPP 902/2010, T.A.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-obiectioiis). LA.APP 1039/2010 (CM No.12875/2011 & CM No.12876/2011 (cross obiectionsl LA.APP 154/2011, LA.APP 158/2011-TA.APP 274/2011,'LA.APP368/2011, LA.APP 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 ofthe Land AcquisitionAct, 1894& AwardNo. 19/97-98,Village-Shahpur Garhi, Delhi) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORPER 23,12.2011

¶1The above captionedappeals arise out of Award No.19/97-98 of the concernedLand AcquisitionCollector,pertainingto the agricultural land in the revenue estate of Village-Shahpur Garhi, Delhi, which v/as acquired by the respondentvide Notificationof 5^'^ April, 1995 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 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.

¶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, appellants have.come-up in these appeals to seek much higher compensation i.e. enhanced compensation @ ?100/- per square yard.

¶3. For development of Freight Complex in Narela Project, vide Notificationof 5^'' April, 1995, under Section4 of the'LandAcquisition LA.App No.608/2009 & Connected matters Page 2 aapit I' ! '• i v ]y Act, a largearea of agriculturallandmeasuring733 bighasand 10 biswas of Village-ShahpurGarhi, 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.

¶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 pertaining to Narela Residential Scheme and on the strengthofDSIDC approvedland rate for allotmentofplots in Narela IndustrialComplex, which stands negated in the impugnedorder while relying upon decision of the Apex Court in Union of India Vs, 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 enhancement(^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-llolambiKalan, ReferenceCourtin the impugnedjudgmenthas assessed (.he compensationin the instant case on the basis of the compensation, assessedby this Court in GajrajSingh (Supra)relatingto Notificationof 15"^ November, 1996, under Section4of Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, pertaining to Village

¶5In these appeals,at the final hearing,the counselspresenton behalf ofthe appellantsas well as seniorcounselfor the respondentswere heard and with their assistance,the impugnedjudgment and the record was LA.App No.608/2009 & Connected matters Page 3 i"' V- •-., Vis® s'----..•;?'•,/•. y" b perused. Since the submissions advanced by both tlie 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 behalf of the appellants. These are:- • 'i) That LAC has given very low rate of market value thoughthe land of the petitionerhas got potential , value as the land of the petitioner is surrounded by the biggestcolonyof Asia namelyRohini and the land was acquiredfor the commercialactivities;

ii) that LAC has n.ot 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. Government Karnal 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 questic^n was agriculturalat the time of issuance of Notificationunder Section4 of Land AcquisitionAct in question.The main groundto seek enhancementof compensationput forth on behalfof the appellantsis the potentialvalueofthe land in question.Thoughthe standofthe appellants herein before the Reference Court was that the land in question is • strategicallylocatedfrom the commercialand industrialpoint of vievv^, 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 andpotentiality,as it has been acquiredfor the development /-' of Rohini Residential Scheme.

¶8Appellants claim that acquired land is in close proximity of IndustrialArea developedby DSIDC and 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 allotment of alternate plot under the NarelaResidentialScheme 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 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,. learnedsenior counsel for the respondenthas clarified that the purposeof acquisitionof the land in questionis solelyfor the developmentof freight complex in Narela. However, it was disputedthat the acquired land in LA.App No.608/2009&Connectedmatters Page 5 f:.-' question is surrounded by any develoiDed.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 underthe Narela ResidentialSchemefloated by DDA. In this regard reliance was placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in Lai Chand Vs. Union of India & Anr, (2009) 15 SCC 769: Reliance v/as also placed upon a decision of a Coordinate Bench of, this Court in LA.APP 266/2008Jai Singh Vs<. Union of India. & Am\ , rendered on 23"' August, 2011, wherein in relation to this village, pertainingto an acquisition of land vide Notification of 16^'' May, 2002, amount of compensation was determined at 8,65,500/- per acre while relying upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Gajraj Singh 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 adjoining village-Holambi 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.

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

¶12While relying upon two decisions of the Apex Court in Bhim Singh Vs. StateofHaryana (2003) 10 SCC529 & Union ofIndia Vs. 'Rant Phool (2003) 10 SCC 167, claim ofthe appellantsto apply DDA and DSIDC rates to the land in questionstands,repelledby holding that no willingpurchaserwould buy agriculturallandin questionatthe rate on whichgovernmentis allottingdevelopedland. LA.App No.608/2009 & Connected matters Page 6 pi'V'-' • /£

¶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. Infact, Apex Court' in its recent decision in Lai Chand Vs, Union of India (2009) 15 SCC 769 h£is 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), whil^h deserves to be highlighted, are as under:- '44. One of the recognized methods for determination of market vahie is yvith reference to the opinion ofexperts. The estimation of market value hy 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 of evidence. It will be however open to either party to place, evidence to dislodge the presumption that mayfloM>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 yvith the prescribed assessment procedure (either streetyvise, or . roadyvise, or areayvi.se, or. villageyvi.se) and finalized after inviting objections and published in the gazette. Be that as it may.

¶48Even if the relied upon transaction is only t\vo to three years prior to the acquisition, the Court should, before adopting a standard escalation, satisfy itself that there yvere no adverse circumstances. For example, if the acquisition is of the year 2009, it may not bepossible 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 doyvn by more than 40% to 50%)from, the 2007 rates. Caution is therefore necessary before increasing the price yvith. reference to the old transactions. Be that as it may. It is clear that the award, made in regard to a. 1961 acquisition M>ill not be of any usefor determining the m.arket • value for a 1981 acquisition.' ,LA.App No.608/2009 &Connectedmatters Page 7 pKi LA.App No.608/2009&Connectedmatters Page 8

¶14The aforesaiddecisionofthe Apex Courtin L(ilSingh (Supra),has been followedby aCoordinateBenchofthis Courtin JaiSingh (Supra), whichalso applieson all fours in thesemattersas 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 mquestionhas been acquiredfor developmentofthe freightcomplexand not for the developmentofaresidentialarea. Exceptthe oral assertionof the appellants/claimantsthat the acquiredland is for the developmentof the RohmiResidentialArea,thereis no tangibleevidenceto establishthis factual assertion.

¶16Cross objectionsfiled by the respondentsto maintainthe rate of compensationfixed by the Land AcquisitionCollector'andnot to adopt the ratio ofdecisionin Gajmj (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 DivisionBench of this Court has been wrongly applied by the ReferenceCourt to the facts of the instantcases. Rather,I find that the RefeienceCourthas correctlyrelieduponthe decisionin Gajraj(Supra), to arriveat the correctmarketvalueofthe acquiredlandin question,

¶17Smce the decision of the DivisionBench-of this case in Gajraj (Supra), has attained finality and it is the basis of the decision of a CoordinateBenchofthis Courtin JaiSingh (Supra), and is alsothe basis of 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 matterof adjoiningvillage-Holambi iV. i. , U I.., Kalan. Even the reductionofthe rate ofcompensationassessed@11.5% compoundinterestfrom the date ofNotificationof 15"^ November,1996 mGajmj (Supra) to date ofNotificationof 5"^ April, 1995 in the instant case IS concerned,I find the sameto be in conformitywiththe decisionin Gajraj (Supra), wherein annual compounding @11.5% has been approved.

¶18As neither side could find fault in the-impugnedjudgment deteimining the mai'Icetvalue of the land in question 16,720/-per acre, tlierefore,the appealsofthe claimantas well as cross-objectionsof Ihc respondentsaredismissed,with no orderas to costs.Accordingly,all the above-mentionedappeals and cross-objectionsare disposedof with direction to the Registiy to remit the compensationamount, if any, depositedby eitherside with the RegistrarGeneral'oftliis Cpmi, to the concerned Reference Court. December 23, 2011 rs LA.App No.608/2009&Connectedmatters Page 9

+ IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 8^^ November, 2011 Pronounced on: 2December, 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 240/201 a 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.APF » 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. TAAPP 774/2010. LA.APP 775/2010. LA.APP 805/2010. LA.APP 822/2010. LA.APP 824/2010 & CM No.10333/201 1 (r-rnss-nhipptiAn) LA.APP 864/2010. LA.APP 901/2010. LA.APP 902/2010. LA.APP 962/2010. LA.APP 1014/2010. T.A.APP 1015/2010. LA.APP 1016/2010. LA.APP 1027/2010. T.A.APP 1032/2010. T.A APP 1035/2010. LA.APP 1037/7010 T.A APP 1038/2010 PM No.12952/2011 (cross-objections). T.A.APP lO^Q/9nin No.12875/2011 & CM No.12876/2011 (cross nbiprtinnQ'i LA.APP 154/2011. LA.APP 158/2011. T.A APP 274/2011. LA.APP 368/2011. LA.APP 379/2011. LA.APP 384/2011 & LA.APP (Relatingto NotificationNo. F.No.ll(36)/94-L&B/LA/5722dated LA.App No.608/2009 & Connected nnatters 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 ofthe LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 & AwardNo. 19/97-98,Village-ShahpurGarhi,Delhi) Present: Mr. DeepakKhosla & Mr. V.P. Rana, Advocatesfor . 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