Ram Prakash v. UOI & Anr

ORDER

14.03.2012 For orders see LA.APPA2l/2010, titled as Suresh Prasad a/iasHari /(ishan vs. Unioll & Anr. March 14,2012 pkb 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. IN 'fl'IE I-IIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NK\V DELlH on: 08, 2012 PronourlCixl on : M:al'ch j 4, ::0!:2 L/\.;\PP.421 /20 l 0 (VILLAC Ii: SURFSII PIV\S!\I) alias IIARl I<ISI IAi\1 Through: ..... Appellant I\Ilr.L3.D.ShCllTna, I\Ilr.S.K .Rout, 1\J\s.Sukhda Dhaillija and iV\ 1'.1:3 .1(. rzo u Ira v, ;\ cI voca res J • UNION OF INDIA &. ANR. .. ... Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjav Poddar, Senior Advocate with I\Ilr.Sanjay Pathak, !VIs.K.Kiran Pathak, Mr.Surya Nalh Pandey, 1'v1r.Yccshu.Jain anel !\I1s.r\javlill S'vvain, /\ciVOC;:lt.CS I()r 1 j\C/UOI I 1\ '\ '"\ }I ') , Ij () , tj , ,. .! PI" ; '\i (). ·f -'-

1._. \. I A .\ 1"')1\1" ,4il'1 n () , () .. :' \ . I . .1..., .... c· . t __ , _ _ I \. i . /\ . /\ P P .r-.,j o. 45:; /!. 0 I 0

1./\ ,i\pp. I'hl. !j<iSI.20! 0 , \ N "(")1')(110 , .,1 .. ./ P p. I . (). .c. 1 ": .J

1./\ .App. No. 465/20.1 0 l.!\.!\pp. No. 469120 I 0 I.A.App. No. 47812010 I.A.App. No. 584/2010

1./\./\pp.No.l 0 12170 I 0 I 1\ '\1')1') 'No (1./1·1 Ile l 1(\ ,. ,.1 .... , .. !, . , __ , u I 1\ '\,')1') "1·, /1 '1/j/')(\, i 1\ ; . . r .. 1_ • .. _. ,..:. ... ' i \.: ! ./\./\pp. 456/20 i () I./\./\pp. Nn. :·1:5<JI::.O! () ! \ ' 'N ' .. , I'" r) 1 .\ J ./\.pp. ! 'u. i:t(:U .. \.1 I./\.!\pp. No. 467/20 I () l,/\.A pp. No. 47U/20 ! 0 I.A.J\pp. No. 580120 i 0 I.!\./\pp. No. 585120 I 0 \ 1\' N - I C' ! .., !.)( I (

1.1" pp. o. J AND ! .!\./\pp. No. iI4:2/:'.0! U /\ ./\ II p. f,J u. if ij h /:!. () I .0 I 1\ .II 1-' i'l ,,[ () 2,1. ')' '/" ;.) (' 1 () •... "Ill"" J ... I. I ,-,.J .. . ! J/\ . !\P p. f'·jo. 46U120 i 0 (,;\ .!\ pp. No. 464120 10 L!\.App. No. 468120i 0 .,. \ '\' N' 4'71 nU' I ('I 1,,1 .. '. P p.O.· ,! ,.. ,I ...

1./\. /\ pp. No . .5 83/20! 0 [ 1\ \ N I - 1 I I'" (') !. ,. , . .l pp.! O. U IL.IU r '\ \ ' 1\1·, 1 ') ''')') 1', ,i .I pp. i .U. ,_I d : L ;\ P P F /\ LS Fl UJ) 13 Y l J N ION OF J ND I /\ I./\./\pp. No. 746/:20 I 0 I./\.i\pp. No. 747/20 10 I ·A '\ '7-II /C)"" ,./\.f pp. !"n. ),I.c. 1(, I \ \ N'" C) ,--, (') I " J .1 P p. 1 0.) ,: / L . , L 1 !- \ " I "74 0 "--'(')' (' ,,\.!pp.I'-lO.le)/';';,I.) L!\.i\Pl.!. NC!. 753/201 () 'I .. \ 1\'- '." I' I) "7 i ') I J () 'I I " ! .' \!)!. 1 • \ (. , t /.:_ \ I I 1\ II rv" '!',i(" -/'49/')(\ I (I . ,I •• , r ! . ,"" .1. ._. ,) I . J i ,/'\.I\pp. 754/:20 i 0 I '\ A ')" N'" 7c.:.5i')() 1 () ,I , i \ \' \.1. 0 . ,.J , I, /\ 1\ ") N () ,- C) i) (') 1 ') , ., PI. I (), ("'), 1,_, ( I,/\.I\r'p. No. 862/20 \ 0 L/\.App. No. 866/2010 ] ,/\.App. No. 869/20 \ () I,A./\pp. No. 21/201:2 , LA.App. No.7 56/20 I 0 LA.Apl'. No, 86012010 L!\.J\ pp. N'o. 863/2010 I j\./\pp. No. 867120 I 0 r A \, N ,1\.1 pp, I 0, 1"_ , I \ A N' " (I')() I ") J. pp. I 0, ) ) __ , L LA.App,i',lo. 858/20] 0 1 ;\ f' - ",'" IIJ('r) " .(\PI-'., Jd. d) (, __ J I I J\ ./\ P p. N (). 8651'20 1 0 L/\,/\pp, No. 868r20 10 I \ I\n i(. 1 (\ I ,I ,I ;-' p. ,".,. / ,J _. _ , ' ./ (Relati ng to Noli II cation l\!o. 1',7 I()01200 1/1,&,13/1.1\ /iV1RTS(S/W )/767,4 01' 05.08.2003 issLied under Section 1.\ or the I,and Acquisition Act, 1894 &. /\ ward No. 512005-00 0 r' V i'llage IVJasoociabacl, Del hi) C()RAM: I-'ON'BLE IVIR .. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

14.03.2012 I. For Depol, MR7S Pro/eel', 610 bighas and 13 bisw;'1s or land or Vil1cwc Masooclabad was accll.Iireci viele NOlillC2Hion /\ugust. 2003 LInder Section ii, of the Land Acquisirion Act., J 894 which was f'ollmved by Noli ficatioll or 8 111 /\ugust, 2003 under Senion h or: the Land Acquisition Act, 1 resulting in of /\w;:1I'(J No,5/2005-06 ( ,''', - ., () (. I - I " .. ," " "', j, " r' ,-, r r> .. ' ,:; -7 r) n (.'. ., " - -, - l' '1;" 1'),:".-,' (' b, • _,O.II,')cnsdtlOI. ,Jt Lh_ .<.1lc (.,' ""S.I.). \ " . .ll .. :' 1',_1 dLle Ull c.c ... I 0" indicative price fixed by the C!ovci'lllllenL ofi'JCT of Delhi h)" the agricultural lands in Delhi.

¶2In the rcJercnce sought by the clairna"nts, interest @0IO% per annum was granted by the Reference Court for the period of two years, i.e., from the date of lixing or the minimum agricultural price. UP!O the dale of Notification, i.e., compensation amount stood enhanced to Rs.! 8,84.,000 per acre for the acquirecl land in qucstion.

¶3In t.he instant appeals, further cnhancernellL 01' \<s,50 L:lcs pcr clcrc is sought by the claimants. whereas the respondent in their appeals have SOUQht asidc of the imlJuQneci order' or the Rc!C!'cncc Court and restoration or the !\\varcL Since the Ll.l'ounds urQccI in these Gl'/)I)cclis is ,,--' '--' ! Atl 1) p, N (), IJ 21 /2 OJ 0 & Co IJ il ccicd /\ p peeds oi' Vi! bgc IV] ;lsooc\,li"Jdd l'agc '2, common, lhcrc('orc, by this common oreier, these arc / ' .. disposed of. .

¶4On behalf of the appcllants/ciairnallLs, it. is ul'gcd lklt Lhe /c,:II"m'd Reference Court. has wrongly t.reated acquired lands ('"IS agricultural land {lnd did not appreciate the potentiality or the (:lcquil"Cd i::lnci as building site and dSSCSSIl\Cllt or the compensation in respect or the acquired land ought to h,:J\iC heen made on the basis or the average auction raIl.' of residential and commercial plots in Dwarka and the rates charged by the DDi\ while allotting alternative plots is a va.lid basis to arrive at true market value orthe acquired land in question.

¶5During the course or hearing, it was pointed out by lcamc.d counsel ror the appellants/claimant.s LhaL Village iVlasoodabad \vas urbanized in the year 1963 and zonal dcvelopmcnt pl;Jrl WclS prepared by Delhi Development Authority in the yeC1i" 197,4 anel Lhe acquisition of" the la!lel illquestioll was for the proposed residential PUi-P0SC. Much reliance was placed upon /\\val"{.1 (1:.\Y\V-I/3) pertaining to Village IVlangolrJur Khurd and Award (Lx.PW·l!4) or Village rVlohamrnadpur iVlunirka of the I Janel /\.cc1Llisit iOll C(Ol) lect.or .. ,-vherein com pcnsatioll was assessed . . while taking inro consideration the L&DO rates. It is pointed out: thaI: some parcel of acquired land abuts the main Delhi-·Najafgarh me-tailed road and in the adjoining Village Nangli Sakrawati, there are and Naja/garh Industria! Area is in the vicinity.

¶6.According to the learned the appcllant:s/clai!11anLS, [he best piece or i.c. allotment of land in Village iVlasoodabad and Najargarh by Df)/\ In Delhi .Ial Board dt the raLe of' Rs.20 i<:iCS pC!' <lCi"C in the year 1993 has been illegally discclrclcd I')y Lhc l\cicrencc Court.. Reliance placed upon lhc clecisions reported in Tindey & Ors. Vs. Union &. !I/1r. 2000(54)DR,1 (DH) 31\4; P.N.Sin.gh p.\". Union of" !./\.!\ PI'. o. 11·21/2 en [) ('{ Co n /I cctccl J\ p pc;:lis () f Vi Ilagc [v1 helci e' India, 1997 t 1\ D (Del) 83; fI (lri Chand vs. Union India, l) 1 (2,001 i DIT 602; Delhi Authority vs. Lund Acquisition ('oi/ec/or & On'., 130(2006) DT I (1)13): A/nUl Singh (died) through LR,' vs. Swte & Anr., /\1 R 200t< SC: 709; fH(fhabir Prasad S'anwka and Ors. Vs Col/ector. Cullock anrl Ors .. (1987) I sec 587; Thakur I(ult/eel' 5;ingh (J)) Thr. L.N. OJ's vs. Union o( India & Ors., AIR 20] 0 SC 1272; Om Praka,\'h (D) by ERs & Ors. P.\'. Union & ,4nl'., 2004 VIII AD (SC) 37; Om Prakll,\'h VS'. State & 01''\', 201 I TV AD (SC) 382; Sagunthala

(dead) through LRs vs. Special Tehsildllr (LA.) lind ors., A I R 2010 SC 984; 11111hesh /)atlatray Thirthkar VS'. State 1l1aharashtra! AIR 2009 'SC to asseri thaI. the compensation claimed in these appeals is ,just. and reasonable, 7, On behal I' of the respondents, it '"vas by learned Sellior Coullsel ['or t.he respondents thal adopt.ion or auction rates of DI)A or , ('; ")() ",. "", " "-",-, -,', I" , (ll" ,'" 'It"!"" I I,; r 'I ... ,; ,.' ':,'.' . -'(I." t ';. 1 hiLI, '. '\ ') , ' ,0':',. I"t.,." III .1.,'I,U,1. (l ... U_,J,,_,. I,J,lC SI.,.l,ll:-o. ,c( <..) .'l, I I,·ex Court. in decision in Lal Chand liS. Union India and Anr., (2009) IS sec 769. it W::I5. also un:.cd hy learned for t.he respondellts that VillC:igciv1asooclabacl heing c1eciarcd to be urbanized, the acquired land in question c'ontinLlcd 1:0 be usee! as agricultural land and therefore, instances of Village Mangolpur Khurcl and l\IIohamlllaclr ll1r l\IIunirka arc of no avail and the. instance 01' land by UJ)A in I'avour of Delhi Jal 130ard CClnnot be treated to be representative price of the hinds in vicinitv (IS the evidence is lackinQ J regarding said instances

1.0 be cO!llIX.lrr.:.tblc ror dc.tcITninilll.':>, the l1lc;lrkeL - -' vallie or rhe land in question, i{cliance was pl(-lCCc! upon decision 01' /\pc:x Court in ,Satpal & Or.\'. Vs. Union

(1997) ! I sec 423 to assert. that. i r ina short period Lhcrc is C:i sharp increase in pl'icc, than the usual prcvalcni Lrcnd in the !TiarkcL. such an instance cannot be taken as __ __ _._ n In " !.JU\pp, No, 42] /2010 ('X.z Connected i\ppeals Masoocictl)cld PClge 4 l'Calistic price unle:ss and until the reasons for slich shaq) rise (Ire explained and there is no explanatiol;1 to justify the or Delhi Jal Board instance 10 detennine the j'narkct value or the acquired lane! in question. 8, As regards the potentialit.y of t.he acquired lanel in question IS cOllcerned, it is contended by learned Senior cOLlllsel for the respondents that no development activity took place in the vicinity nor any building activity had started in the adjoining areas despite Village iVlasoociabad being declared as urban and so the decisions relied upon by the appellants/claimants are distinguishable on facts.

¶9In the appeals prclerred by the I"cSpOndeilts, enhancerncnl in the _ compensation amount is assailed on the ground that the annual increase to be given is dependent upon the nature of evidence led and in the instant mailers, there is no evidence silc)\ving increase in the rnarket priCe of the land in cJucstion till its accjuisitioll, It is asserted that cioinQ mvav -' of classification of acquin::d lands in question by Reference Court is illogical and without any justification. Thus, setting aside of the impugned judgment and restoring of the Award of the Land Acquisition Col lector is sought by the respondents.

¶10Factors and test to determine the true market value of the acquired land have been restated by the Apex Court. in its recent: decision in Radlla ps ... ,Tehsildar (Land Acqui .... ·ition) Tanlil NlIdu l/ou .... ·illg Board, (2010) 13 sec 384, in wOI'cls:-- "Comporable sales instances are the sq/esf rnelhod ./fir deterrnining the rnorkel pa/ue 0/ the acquired land and as' loid down in ,)hoji Kliriokose v. inc/ion Oil Corpn Ltd .. (20n I) 7 sec 650. ii should sWisji; lhe .j(:lctors. inter alia, ( I) the sale nnfSl be (J genuine lransaction:

(2) lhe sole deed must have been e:x.:eculed 01 the ti."ne proximcfte to the dale of issuance olnotiflcalion under Section 4 of the Act: (3) LA.App. No. tJ.21/2010 & Connected Appeals of Village Masoodabacl Page 5 ,the land covered hI' the sole: mus/'he in ihc: I)ieinitv o( the , ". - .,. - (",... .,; .f acquired lond: (4) the lom/ p'r)vef'cdhy Ihe suie !'l1l-1sl he sirni/oi' 10 ii1c ocqllircd ond (.5) size o( the plol 0/ the lond covered by the: sale be cOlnparoh/e ;'0 the acquired land. The soles inslonces should preferob(J' he closesl to the dote o/Ihe nOIi/icalion as then olone illvould 5:0ti.sjj; the touchSlone 0/ the principles conternplated under Section 23 0/ the /leI. as held in Kanwcrr Singh v, Union' q/ India,

(1998)8 sec 136, ,. I I, (laving heard learned counsel for the parties in these rnallers and upon perusal or the impugned judgmcnt, evidence 011 rccord and the decisions cited, I proceed 011 the prcrnisc that the burdcn 01' proving inadequacy of the CO III pensation (lITloun1. is upon lhe appellants/claimants, Now It IS lO be seen as to whuhcr the • appellants/claimants have bcen succcssflJ] ill discharging chi,; burden 01.' not,

¶12No doubt, purpose le)r \,vhich the clcquisilion IS made is an illlport.ant factor, but the question as to wherher the acquired land has potentia! value or not, is primarily one of' depending upon i1.s condition, situation, USCI' to \vhich it is put or is rcasone:lbly capable of being put and proximity to I'csidcntial, cOllllTlercial or inciustriai O!' institutional area, The arncnitics '-' iike waLer, clCC!Ticit v, " possibility or their h.lrther extension and the prospe,c\:s of c!CVC!opillcnl in the area have to !.)c taken into consicieration, 11 helS heen so reit.erated by the Apex Court in Alma Singh (supra). It is in Ihis contexL, I have seniti n i;;,ccI the evidence Ull record and r ri nd the!!, t.here is hare! I v anv - '-.J .l evidence regarding the lOpogrclphy 01' the area aei,',oining the acquired lanc! in Clucst.ion and the evidence led re0JlrciinQ the oks shizra (Fx,Pv\f" , 2/1) or this village docs nol t:hrow any light nn this vital aspect, except that the evidence led to prove this docunlent adversely reflects thaI on the eastern side or Village !\I/osoodobad, there is Najafgarh drain, which I./\.!\pp, No, IJ,21 /2010 & Connected Appeals of Village M<lsoodabad Page 6 ·In:,,1.cad or cnhancing . .1.hG ,potcnli<:il)t.y, rclthcr diminishes it. The wllness who W;IS got cxarninecl It) PFOV( Lhc oks shizro ul' Village Ndrtgli So/crawati (Ex.PW-4/1) concedes thci'fthe metalled road between Village Nangli Sakrawati and Village Masoodabad is not renectecl in the cl.ks shizra. Evidence of this witness (PW-4) instead of advancing the case of the appellants/claimants regarding the potentiality, reduces the pot.entiality of the acquired land in question.

¶13There is no evidence to establish the comparability of tile acquired lands uncleI' ;\\vard (Ex.PW-II3) penaining to Village i\lfal1golpur Khurd and under Award (Lx.PW-1 /4) of Village Mohomrnadpur Munirko with the acquired lancl in question. Hather., as per evidence of the concerned '/A .. olJicial (PvV-1 0), /\ward (Lx,F)\iV .. l 011) pertained to \Vest: Patel Nagar ,e ror Metl'O I)roject. Thus. in the cOllsidered opinion of this Court, \{el"erence COLlrt has I'ightly excluded the aforesaid ;\\vards (Fx'p\V-l/3 &. Fx.PW-\ /4) to determine the hlir market value of the acquired land in question. serving deposition of claimants regarding potentiality of acquired lands in question, in the absence. of corroborative evidence, is not enough to return positive finding on this crucial aspect, particularly in view of the hlct that evidence rCP,arciinQ industries being. there in the viciniLy ofacquircd lands is lacking..

¶14So as the Delhi Jed /Joord inst.ance (Ex.P\\/ -411) is concerned, I find that even its comparability \vith acquired land in question is nOT established the wilness (Fl\V-S) who h2b deposed in respect of Ihis transaction has conc:edcd that he is not able to wil tlK; distance fr011"1 the said land to the land in question. 'Therefore, Reference Court has rightly not relied upon the Delhi .fal Board instance (Ex.PW-411). \ S. It has come in evidence of the appellants/claimants that there is no (Jovernlllent hospital or collegc:-, in Village Masooc/abod and the evidence IAl\pp. No. ,.,·21/20·J () Connected Appeais of Village Masooclabacl PclgC "7 . j'cgclrding the lalld in quest.ion being SU1TOl.IIldeci by deve!\)ped colonies is lacking. In the h'lec or <Llch deficient evidence, there is no scope for enhancement of cOlllpen'sation in the instant appeals. Such a conclusion is being drawn while keeping in view the ratio of the precedents cited. "Iaving to establish the. potentiality of the acquired land in question, the appellants/claimants have to remain content \,vith the assessment or compensation on [he basis of the indicative lxicc of the agricultural land bv Ciovcrnrncnt of NeT of Delhi . as undisputedly, the acquired land in question were being Llsed For agricultural purpose sf the time or its acquisition.

¶16Upon scrutiny 01-thc cvidence 011 recol'd, it becomes quite fa apparent that dcspi LC Vi Ilage Mosoodobcrd bei ng declared as urban, the 'W aCCJuired land in question were being used for agricultural purpose. by the appellants/claimants and so, adoption of indicative price of agricultural lands by Ciovernment of NCT of Delhi appears to be a reasonable criteria for determining the market value of the acquired lanel in question, as on the date of under Section 4 or the Lond //cquisilion Act. /894. Such a view is be.ing taken as the:: acquired 1;:lnd in question \vas adm itted Iy undeveloped and therefore, adoption (?t'DDA aucfion ralcs or I,&DO rales is not pcnnissiblc in view ol'thc dictUITl or the i\pex ('oull in Lal Chand (supra), \vhich has been quoted with approval by Ihe /\pcx Courl in its latest. decision in Thakur /(uldeep SinJ;h (supra).

¶17I{egarciing lIlcrease or I o (Yi) per annum over and above the minimum indicative. price IIxed by Government of NCr of Delhi, the same. cannot be assailed by the respondent as the Reference Court: has done so while relying upon decision of the Apex Court in Union India ps. I-Iarpat,

(2009) 14 sec: 375. This COllrt finds that the .. IA/\pp. No 42:1 j20] 0 g Connected Appecds of Vi!lage Maso()cLlh<ld . Rekrellcc COLwl was ,iusLificdin granting the aforesaid innease of 1 CYYo pcr annulll while relying upon the decision in Harpat (supra).

¶18In the light of the Core-going narration, ! lind no infirmity in the impugned .iudgment in which fair compensation has been in respect. or the acquired land in quest.ion. Reference: Court has rightly not classified t.he acquired land in question into '. A' category and 'IY category, as I.and Acquisition Collector in t.he /\wa,'ci in question unequivocally stared thaI no classiFication ur the acquireci land is rcquircclto bc clone as the acquired I;Jnci is leveled .

¶19Consequemictlly, t.he appeals of the dppe!I:::1IlLs/c\ailllanls as well 21S appeals or Union or India arc dismissed, while leaving the panics t.o bC211' • lheir own costs. Registry is directed 1.0 reillit the compensation amount, if any, deposited by either side \vith the Registrar General of this Court, to t.he concerned Reference Court. NI a rchI4., 20'( 2 pkh _ _ .. I'/\.!\pp. No. 1J,21 /201 0 & COllllccl'ed !\ppc:Jls of jVjcISOOci;:li1:Jd

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI t:l V + LA.APP.457/2010 Reserved on: February 08, 2012 Pronounced on : March 14, 2012 RAM PRAKASt[ ..... Appellant versus UOT & ANR Through: Mr.B.D.Sharma, Mr.S.K.Rout, Ms.Sukhda Dhamija and Mr.B.K.IZoutray, 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 forLAC/(J()1 (Relating to Notification No. F. 7/60/200 lIL&l3/LA/MRTS(S/W)/7674 of 05.08.2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 5/2005-06 ofViilage Masoodabad, Delhi) CORAM: IJON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR