Rakesh Kumar v. UOI & Anr

ORDER

14.03.2012 l·'or orders see LA.APP.421120 10, titled as Suresh Prasad alias Hari Kishan vs. Union oflndia & Anr . March 14,2012 pkb ... NIL GAlJU) JUDGE Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. . ,I: IN THI( I'IIGI·. COURr OF DELHI /-\1' NEvV DEtJ'U nn: Fehruary 08, 2012 . ' Pnlr10UIlCcd 011 : iVlarcll 14, 20 1:2

1.1\ .1\I)P.4?1/20 1 () (VI LLAC E M ASOODA BA D) PR/\SAI) KISIIAN ' .... /\.ppellanl 'I'hrough: iVlr,I3,I).Sharrna, iVlr,S,K.Rout, versus . iVls,Sukhda Dhaillija and Mr./3,I(./{ol.ltray, Advocates LlNION OF INDIA & ANR. ... " Respondents 'Through: Mr.Sarijay Podd2ir, Senior /\'c!VOCdLC with iVII·.San " ClV Pathak , Ms. !<. i<il'an . I ;\ . 1\ P p. No. 42. I (20 I () . . \ N . I I -, I, (' , (00

1./\./ pp, j (1. U.j! .. ) I J' \. .... N' 4.::S'I()I') J , \ . I P 1__ 0 . .J ._ , ,-. l I ,;\,App. No. 45xt20 10 , A \. 'N '('')/'C) I (\ I .. ' \.1 11P. , O. Lf ') "- "-'" ! L/\.!\pp. No, 465/20.1 0 I ,A.!\pp. No. 469/20! 0 I.A.!\pp, No.4 78120! 0 , \. A .", . .--x ·f ." i) I (

1./ .l\pp. I,JO. )c:,,.!."-, .> l.l\ .App.No.1 0 1 2/2010 Pathak. Mr,SUI'v;J N"lLh Pclncicy. , ..1 • ' iVlr.'{ccshu .lain and iVis.Navlin Swain., i\dV0C;::ics f"or !,;\C/UO! AN!) i.l\.!\pp. [\'io. '14112C10 I'/\./\pp. No. I j\.I\.pp. No. 444120 I 0 i..!\../\pp. No. 446/2010 .. ,-.. A56/2() j,;\.!\pp.No. 45712'010 No. L/\./\pp.No (l I.A.App. No. 2'fo.:;/.?Ol 0 LA./\pp. No. I· \. \. 'N 4'-7',()1(' I' \. \" N /f ''')/101(1 ..I .1 pp. O. / () ! -'- , . ) .. f.l .. o. ·-t():-)/.!.. . LA.A pp. No. 470/20 lOLA .App. No, -471/201 () I 1\ ;\ I"' I' 'N' (1 () 1 () r /' l\ "'"IIJ Ni ('- i'i ('V r\'! ,,' . ' :' .J, , .• J t, .!.... !. I. ,.,1 !-'I"! _.1. oJ c· .. " .c .. J / I I\. f\" 1--I" Nlc' " C' 'i I? () 1 n l /,. I -'. )....- ().... _._. ! \J 1 A \. "N 1 (. I '" /1 () I -. ,,' \.1 P I, . I 0 . ),.) --" () /\ND r \. \ -, N" I .\ 1 '1 n n ' (l

1..1 .I PI" I ( ... , L .... " I .; I /\ '\'"'1" 'N"" I ")j"(-\ i -; I .• • / . t) l J. . \.). ':',:""._- /\PPL;\LS FIl.LD lTV (.iNIOI'! OJ: iNi)1 /\

1.!\.I\.PP. No. 746/?O I () i.;\ .;\ p p. No. 7!j 7120 I () l./\.!\pp. No. 751/2()iO I 1\ ;\"1) N/) :;'O(,() 1 ..... .II • .J.-... '\. .... ./ ,7, ':'-.1 "'- l./\.J\pp. '[\10. 748/20 i 0 l.!\./\pp.1',jn.75:3/2010 i .fLAp p. f\l D. 1-2'[,1 201 () & Con II ect cd !\ p pCcds 0 r Vi i L:lgC Mc)s()oda bad LA .I\pp. No. 710/201 1 ! ./\./\pp. 1'10.749/20 I () l,/\./\pp. No. 754/2010 ,,'- .. ' l\ it1' 1 ,/\,;\pp. No. 755i20 \ 0 IA.App. No, 859/20] 0 I '\ N' , 0' 'l/') (.) I (') " \ .,. p p. 1 0, <) 6 ,_ L., ' I ,!\.!\pp. No. 866rW 1 () L/\./\pp. No. 869/20] () Ij\,/\p]). No. 2112()1:? I ;\ ;\ 1')''\ i\', -, -::. L)/') n I 0 I,/''\.!\,

1..1. U., ,". L'" L!\.!\pp. No, 81S0/20 I () 1 '/\.;\pr1. No. 863/20 i () I J\. /\ P p. No. 8 () 7120 1 0 I .;\ . /\ P p, No. ? 6 7/2 0 I I L/\,/\pp. No. 56/2012 , \ \ 'N c, .. C' /r) 0 1 n L! ./,pp. , n. i '-' r ,!\ . ;\ 0 j) .i'J n. g () 1 /20 i 0 , , i .;\./\ pp. No. 865/20 \ 0 I./\./\pp, No. 868/20 10 L/\, App. NO.7 52120 I 0 (Relati ng 10 NOLi lication No.1:. 7/601200 I 11.0& I3/L/\/MlrT'S(S/'vV)/76 7 4 or 05.08.2003 issued under Section 4 or the Land Acquisition Act, J 894 & Award No. 5/2005-06 of Village Masooclahad, Delhi) CORAM: HON'BLE MR .. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUH ORDER ----- 14,f)3.20 12 I. h)!' 'Noia/garh Depol. MItTS l.Jrojec/ " 6] 0 bighas and 1.-1 biswas or land of Village Masoodabad was acquired viele NOliliCd1.ion of Sill August, 2003 under Section ii, 01' the Land !\cquisiLion Act, I x94 \vhieh was I'ollowcd hv Notification nl'SIII /\W'LlSt. 2003 undel' Section (') of' the: .' . .::--,.' . " Land /\cl]uisit.ion Act, 1894 resulting in passing of !\WClTci No.5/2005-06 granting cornpensation at the rate of Rs. i 5.70 lacs per 2lcre on the basis 01' indicative price lixed by the Government of NCr of Delhi for the agricultural lands in Delhi. ') I n the reference sought by the eta i manls, i nlercst C:D 1 cn-'() pCi' annum was granted by the Reference COllrt for the period of [WO YCElr:.;, i.e., (i'om the date of I'ixing 01' lhc minimulTI agricuiwral price uptn the date 01' Notill\.:atiol1, i.e., cOll1pcnsatioll amount stood enhanced RS.l 8,84,000 pCI' acre ror the acquired land in question. ') In the instant I'urlbel' l:llhdnCcmcnt of' I<.s.50 lacs pCI' acre is sought hy the cL:tilllanls. \vhcl'c.(lS the !'cspondcilL in their appeals ha"/e ':;ought selling dsidc oj' the irnpugncd OI'Cle!' of the Rc!c,'cnce Court and restoration of the ;\v,iard. Since the grounds urged in these appeals is , - IA/\pp, No. 1],21 liO:! 0 & Connected Appeals 01' Vilbge MasoociClhac! Page Z common, thcITi'orc. by thi:-; cornmon order, these appuds :eIre: being disposed of. .4. On behal!, or the (lppcilan\.s/c!aiIllClnls. it is urged that the leal'llcc\ l\elcTcncc Court has wrongly treated acquired lands ,IS agricult.ura! land and did not appreciate the potentiality 01' the acquired land as building sile and assessment of the compensation in respect of the acquired land ought to have been made on the basis or the average auction rate of residential and c.ommercial plots in Dwarka and the rates chrLrgcd by lhe nu/\ \vllile allotting alternative plots is a valid bdsis to dlTivc at true market value or the acquired iane! in question.

¶5During the course or hearillg, It Wi-IS pointeci oul by !c"rIled counsel for the appellant.s/claimants that Viilagc Masooc!abad WEIS LlI'bani/cd ill the veal' 1963 cinel /.onal cleveloomcnt lJ1an was ',)rCl)arcci hv .I ' oJ Delhi Development Authority in the yeal' 1974 and the acquisition of the L!1ld in question \·\'as 1'01' the proposed rcsidcnLiai pLli'posc. i'vluch reliance: was placed upon ;\w'arcl (J::x.P'vV-li.3) pertaining to Village Mangolpur Khurd and Award CEx.P\V-l/4) of Village J\!Iohammadpur I\Ilui-lirkcl of the Land Acquisition Collector. vvherein compensatinn was assessed while taking into consideration the L&DO rates. It is pointed out Lilal some parcel of acquired land abuts the main Dclhi,NajaJgarh ITlCi.Cllicd road and in the adjoining, Village Nang!i Sakraw;Jti. there nrc industries and Najargarh Industrial Area is ill the vicinity.

¶6According to the lCcllT,cd counsel Cor the clppeiiants/cl;-:i!lHIrlLS .. the best. piece or evidcncc, i.c. diloLnleni of' lane! in Village Masoodabcld ::I1lc! hy J)i)!\ lo Delhi .Iul Board ;:11 the rate of' Rs.20 le:lCS pCI' Clerc in t.he year 1993 has been illegal!y discarded by the Reference Court. is placed upon t.he reported in Tinder (.\: Or.\·. Vs. Union Anr. 2000(54)DR.l (DB) 384; P.N.Singh ps. Union . _'elA IAApp. No. 421/2010 & Connected !q)pcals of Village Masooci;:i1laci

t India. 1997 I 1\ D (Del) I-f ari (,hund vs. Union ollndifl, <) i (200 i) 1)1 J 602; Delhi Developn'ICl1t /1 p.\". Land Acquisition Col/ector & Or.\" .. 130(2006) DT I (DI3):, Afl'l1aSingh (died) through LUs liS. 5;/ate & Al1r., A I R 2008 SC 709; Mahabir Prasad Sanllllw and Or .... ·. Vs Co/lector. Cuttacli and Or,"", (1987) 1 sec 587; Thakur Kuldeep Singh (D) Thr. L. R. & Ors p.\'. Union & Ors., !\ I R 20 JOSe 1272; Om Praka,\'" (IJ) by LR. ... · & Or."". VS. Union ollndia & /Inl"., 2004 VIII I\D (SC) 37; Om Prakas'h vs. State (d1 /mymw & Or.\' , 2() I II V .AD (SC) 382; 5)aguntha/a

(dead) through L /?s 1',\. Special . . Teh ..... ildar (L.A.) and or...... 1\ I R 20 lose 984; IHuhesh DlIl1(/fruy Thirthlwr V.'I. State l\;faharashtra. !\ I R 2.(){)C) SC 2238, to assert tJLll t.he compensation claimed in these appeals is just and reasonable.

¶7On behal!' ()I' the respondents, it was C1sscrtcd by learned Senior Counsel for the respondents that. adoption of the auction rates ofDDA or

1.&-1)0 rates in respect of agricultural lanel stands negated by the Ape;.; Court in decision ill Lal Chand vs. Union and Anr., (2009) 15 sec 769. It \vas also urged by learned c()unscl for the respondents that despite Village fVIasoodabad being declared to be urbani/,ed, the acquired land in question continued to be used as agl'icultural land and instance:'. of M (Ingo\ pIli" [(11 u rei Vi il'lc," .' •• (. I\/)ohamma.dpur iVIunirka are or no ;-wail and the installce 01' dlinll'ncnt or land by DDA in Cavour of Delhi .lal nOclrcl cannot be trea!.ed to be rcprCSCIl1(lt.ivc price 01' the !allels in the vicinity as the evidence is lackilH!. . regarding said instClnces to be comparable If)" determining the market \faiue of' the land in question. Reliance placed upon decision of the Apex Court. in Satpal & On. Vs. Union olJnliia. (1997) 11 sec 423 to assert. that if in a short period there is a sharp increase in price., than the usual prevalent. t.rend in the market, sueh an instance cannot be taken as -"

1.J\.J\pp. No. IJ·21 /201 n & (onnccted Appeals of Vili;:;ge Masoodabad q realistic price unless and ul1tii the rC8sons for such 1 snarp cxplclinecl and there is no to justify the acjoption of Delhi .lal Board instance to determine the rnarket value of the acquired land in question.

¶8As regards the potentiality of the acquired lanel in question IS concerned, it is contended by learned Senior counsel for the respondents that no development activity took place in the vicinity nor (lny building activity had started in the adjoining areas despite Village i\I1,lsc)oda!:::;acl hei ng declared as urban and so the decisions rei ied upon by the appellants/claimants are distinguishable on facts.

¶9In the preferred by the responc!Nd:s, enhancement in the e' compensation amount is assailed 011 the ground that the annual increase to be gi ven is dependent upon the nature of evidence led and in the instant matters, there is no evidence showing increase in the market price of the land in question till its acquisition. It is asserted that doing away of classitication of acquired lands in question by Reference Court is illogical and without any justification. Thus, setting aside of the. i m pugnecl .i ucigmcilt and restoring of the /\ ward of the Land !\cql.lisition Collector is sought by the responcients.

¶10Factors anci test to determine the It"lJe 1l1arkel: vaille of the acquit'cel land have been restated by the Apex Court in its recent decision in RadlUl 111udaliyar FS. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) TlI1nil Nuda /-/oa,\'ing Board, (2010) 13 sec ':;84, in worcls:- "Cornparable soles instances clI"e the sa/est rnethod ,P,,'. delennining the I'lwrkel value 0/ the acquired land and as laid dOl,vn in Shc(ii Kuriakose v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltc/., (200/) 7 sec 650, if should salisf1; the factors, inter alia, (/) the sale mU.,'t be a genuine transaction:

(2) the sale deed must have been execUled at the til'ne proximate to the date of issuonce oj notification under Section 4 of'the Act; (3) U\.J\pp. No. tl21/2010 &. Connccted Appcals ofVillclgC Mclsoodahacl Page 5 the land covered hv the sale !/IUSI he in the vicini/v o( the acquired land; (4/ the 'ic;;nd hy (he sale be similar to the acquired land: and (5) size q{lhe plut 0/ the land covered by the' sale be cornparable /0 the C1cquirec/ land. The sales s'hould preferabf)} be c/o,,:;esl 10 the dote of the not!/icaliol'1 (}S then olone it wouhl the touchstone of the principles contemplated under Section 23 0/ the licf, as held in Kam·vor Singh v. Union 0/ Indio, ( J 9 () S)) Cl S'(--:('" I j (j " . _ C ,_ ... .. J. I I. . Ilaving heard learned counsel r'or the panics in these matters ::Ind upon perusal or the impugned judgment, evidence nn record (Inc! the decisions cited, I proceed 011 the prcillisc that the burden of proving inadequacy of t.he CO III pen s(]t i () n amount IS upon rhe appellants/claimant.s. Now it is

1.0 be seen as to whether Lhe. e appeliants/claimLlnts have been successful in discharging this burden or • not.

¶12No doubt, purpose for which the acquisition IS made is important factor, but: the question as to \.vhether rhe acquired land has potential valLIe or not, is primarily one of depending UPOIl its conditioll_ situation, USCI' to which it is put ur is rC;lsonably capable or bc.ing put and proxirnity to rcsidcntiai, or illciusi:!"i::'I.i or institutional area. "fhe existing like waler, electricity, possibility or their funhcr extension and the prospects oC devc.ioprnent in the (1re(1 have to he t:lken illlO c()nsiclet-atioll. It has been so reiLerated bv . the /\pcx Coun in Alma S'ingh (supra), It is ill this context.. I have sCI"lJtini/.cd t.he cvidcll(:c on record (mel I rind that. there is hardly anv . -' evidence regarding the topography of the area adjoining the acquired land in question and the evidence led regarding the oks shizra (Lx.PW-2/]) or this village does not throw any light on this vital aspect, excel')t that t.he evidence led to prove this document rcllccts ::hai c)n the eastern side or Village Masooe/ohm:/' there isi\Je].i::!i!sal'h drain., \vhich P;-lge 6 • instcadof enhancing potentiality, rather diminishes it. The vvitness . . " .. ; .' .. ' who was got examined to the oks shizra of Village Nangli Sakrowali (1:x.PW-4/J) concedes that the metalled road bet\vec.n Village Nangl i Sakrawati and Village N/asoodabcuj is not rel'lected in the ok.}' shizro. Lvicience or this witness (PW-A) instead of advancing, the case of the appellants/clai III ants recrardinu the b b potentiality, reduces the potentiality of the acquired land in qucstion.

¶13There is no evidence to establish the conlparability of the acquired lands under Award (Fx.pvV·-1/3) pertaining to Village '\!/cmgolpur Khurd and under Award (Lx.PW--1/4) or Villagc MiJhomrnodpur Munirk.o with the acquired land in question. Rather, as per evidence of the concerned official (PW-IO), A\,vard (Ex.PW-I 0/1) pertained to West Patel Nagar for Metro Project. 'rhus, in the considered opinion of this Court, Reference Court has rightly excluded the aforesaid ;\ \.\Iards (Ex .PW -\ /3 &\::x.P'vV--1/4) to determine market value 01' the acquired land in qucstion. S,:;lf serving deposition of clai1l1ants regarding potentiality of acquircd lands in question, in the absence of corroborative evidence, is not enough to return positive linding on this crucial aspect, particularly in view or the tha 1 evidence regarding industries being there in the vicinity or acquired lands is lacking .

¶14So hlr as the Oc/hi ..fa! Boord instance (Fx.PW--4/1) is concel-ned., I lind that even its comparability \,vith a.cquired land in question is not f; established as the witness (PvV-S) \vho has deposed in respect of this transaction has conceded that he is not able. to tell the c1istanccl1-om the said land to the land in question. Therefore, COUll h8S I-ightly not relied upon the Delhi Jed Board instance (T:,x.PW·-4/1).

¶15It has come in evidence of the appellants/clairnants thallhcrc is no Ciovernmcnt or college in Village Masoodahod and the evidence ) .. !v regarding the acquired I.and inquesti,on being surrounded by cleve'loped colonies is lacking. In the fa.ce of such deficient evidence, there is no scope for enhancement of compensation in the instant appeals. Such a conclusion is being drawn while kc.cping in vicw the ratio of Lhc precedents cited, t.o establish the poreni.iality or' the acquired land in question, the appellants/claimant.s have to l'erncUIl content with the assessment 0(' compensation on the basis of the indicative price or the agricultural land by (iovernmelll of NeT of Delhi as undisputedly, the acquired land in question were being used f()r agricultural purpose at the time of its acquisition.

¶16Upon scrutiny of the evidence on record, it becomes quite _ apparent that despite Village /\!/asoodahad being declared aSlIrban, the acquired land in qLiestion \vere being used for agricultural purpose by the '. appellantslclaimants and so, aclortioll of' indicative price of ;.:Igricultu:·al lands by (icwcrnment or NCT of Delhi appcars LO be a reasoll2lblc criteria f(ll' determining the market value of' the acquired i::lJld in questioll, as on t.he date of Noli lication under Section 4 or the Land /lcquisitiol1 /1(". 1894. Such a \liew is being taken CIS the:: acquired iancl in question was admittedly undeveloped and adoption 0/ DD// OliClion rales or lA.tDO roles is not permissible in of the cliClUr11 of lhe Apex Court in LIII Chund which has been quoled \vith approval by the Apex Court in its latest decision in Thakur Ku Ide ep Singh (supra).

¶17Regarding Increase or I ()(Yo per annum over and above the minimum indicative price lixed by GovenllTlCnt of NeT of Delhi, the same cannot be assai led by the respondent ,:IS the Rc fcrcncc Court has done. so while relying upon decision of the Apex Court in Union India VS. l-hI/1Jl1t, (2009) 14 sec 375. This COlin finds th"I!' the . '. )3 Reference Court was in granting the a foresaicl incn::,ase of I (YI';) per annum while: relying upon t.he decision in [-Iarpat (supr:'l).

¶18[n the light or the fore-going narration, [ no infirmity In the impugned .judgrnent. in which ,;olllpcnsdt.ion has been (!:;scsscd In respect 01' thc acquired land in CjLlestion. Rcic:rcncc Coun has rightly 1101. classified the <-Icquit-ed land in question into '/\' category alld '13' CHc!..'.orv. as I.and /\cc]uisilion Collector in t.he ;\wcll"CJ in ('llIeSlion has uneClllivoccdly stat.ed t.hal no or the acqllin.'.cI land is required to be done as the acquired land is Icvcied.

¶19Consequentially, the appeals of the appellants/claimants as \vell as appeals or Union of India arc dismissed, while leaving the parties to bcar their own costs. Registry is directed to remit the compensation amount, if" any, deposited by eithcr side \,vith the Registrar CCIlCI"21\ of this CClLIrl, t() the concerned Reference Court. ." .:':._ . .. .. ro;;;UN;t. GA.UR) 20)2 pkb JUDGE --= _ _ _ ,I

1./1.1\ P p. N (). !lI1 /201 () 8· COil il cncd !\ p pc:ils of \i j M h:lcI -- . -. Page 9

• * IN THE HIGH COURT OF llELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 45912010 IZeserved on: February 08, 2012 Pronounced on : March 14, 2012 RAKESII KUMAR ..... Appellant versus UOI& ANR Through: Mr.B.D.Sharma, Mr.S.K.Rout, MS.SukJlda DhamUa and Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates . .... Respondent Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Ms.K.Kiran Pathak, Mr.Surya Nath Pandey, Mr.Yeeshu Jain and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for LAC/UOI (Relating to Notification No. F.7/60/2001lL&B/LA/MRTS(S/W)/7674 of 05.08.2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 5/2005-06 of Village Masoodabad, Delhi) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR