Hardesh Kumar & Ors v. UOI & Anr

ORDER

14.03.2012 For orders see LA.APP.421120 10, titled as Suresh Prasad alias lIar; J(ishlln vs. Union of India & 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. Reserved 011: February 08, 2012 l)rclIlollllccd 011 : f\/larch 14,2012 LA.APP.421120 10 (VILLAGE MASOOI)ABAll) S lJR ESI-I PRASA D alias I tARI 1<1 Sl iA N ..... ;\ ppcllant 'I'hrollgh: J\!I r. H. D.Sharrna,i'v1 r.S. K. ROllt, Ms.Sukhda Dhamija and Mr. B.I< .I{olltray, Ad vocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. " ... Respondents Mr.Sanj;:!v Poddar, Senior /\dvocale Til rough: r ,A.;'\ pp. No. 421120 I 0 1\ t\ N' ;t " .... ''')()I() ! ,/ .1 .pp. 1 O. '-t"U/.:.., , \ \ 'N 'I .- r '" () I ('

1./ .1 pp. o. t·t),)!.! . 1 ) I J\.l\pp. No. ,ISgn.O 10 I A ·\ N "'-"')()I() . .1 pp. , o. Llh.,:.! _ j • I j\./\pp. No. 465/20.1 0 LA.App. No. 469/20 10 1'1\ A NI ,,"'1"1')('1(' , . pp., .1 : ,/\./\pp, No. 5S4/20 10 I \ " N 1 () I " ',-, (' 1 (. .!.i\pp.IO. , .:.'!_:.J ) \vi th i'v1 r. Sanj C'.\ y P::lth ak, IVI s.I(O/< i ["(,IJl Pathak, Mr.Surya NaIll Pandey, Iv'lr.Yccshu Jain anel 1'v1s.Navlin SwaIIl, Advocates For 1./\ CIUOI AND LA.!\prl. No. 441/)010 L/\.!\ pp, No, 444120 i 0 I i\ '\1-11') N, '\ 1 n ,:i .1 ... r. ' <.,. '._ J __ .! I I ,/\.I\I'P, No. 4591'2010 I ,/\,/\pp. Nt). 463/20! () I '\ i\ I" 'N' ') .::: 'x' () I") r) 1 () . ! •. I \ I'" ,). 1 \ . •. J ( .' I ..:._ . I ,l\ .1\ P P . No. 5 8 :') /2 Ol 0 I '\ /' l"l-'" I,) It")' I -;/! r) I i) ./ . \ 'j.i'h .. I.-,:,'. \ /\ND [./\.!\pD. No, 442120 10 ",' /\ .!\ , ... ,.... l,l (' /1 /1.lC) j'i n '1' () , j. ; _" -to:; "._.. . i 0/\ . i\ P P .N (). .4 5 '7 !2 0 ,\ 0 1,;\./\ pp. N (). ll60120 I () !./\.!\pp, !"jo. 464!]OlO , . /\ pp, No. 468/.::010 L;\.I,pp. No. 471/2010 I /\ /, '" n 1', i () .;;. " n (i 1 r) " • .' \ ,.' t ..••. 'Ij •• • j <.1._. I ___ J I t . I '\ \ N' . C' , I '" (\ , ;'. "I \.J pp.1 10,! )! ! £.,I! U I ,/\,;\pp, No. 12/2012 /\PPI':/,\LS FILED BY lJNION OF !NDJ/\ I !\ 1\ N'i. 74( I)() I I'J " " pp, L ·0, )/ .. _, \ L/\.J\pp, No. 74712010 I./\.;\pp, No. 751 !20 10 LA.i\pp. No, 59/2012 I j\,/\pp. 748/20 10 I i\ 1\ .) '1\'. "I':.;'''j'')) (I ,/\., PI. ,,,.J ,-,( I , L/\./\)I), No. 710/20 I I r /\. 1\ '-"OJ N f) '1.d 9 n C') 'I () .. .. -,.J f' . • ...... I '._ , I I ,A.App. 1'.)0,75412.010 : .• ill. , 41-'.' t \ .. Nt ---''-;I)() I () _/\.1 pp, I O. --, '-I.A./\pp. No. 85912010 L;\,;\pp. No. 862/20 10 LA.App. No. 866/20 10 LA.App. No.'869/20 10 LA.App. No. 21/2012 I.A.App_ No. 756120 10 L,!\.App. No. 860120 I 0 LA.App. No. 863/2010 L,A.App. No. 867/2010 LA.App. No. 26712011 LA.App, No. 56/2012 LA.App. No. 858/2010 LI\.l\pp. No. 8611201 () !\A N 8/::::')011) J". . -pp .. ' o. \_u/._ ., LA.App. No. 868/20 I 0 LA. A pp. NO.7 52120 10 (Relating to Noti fication No. 1:.7/00/2001 IL&IJ/\.A/M RTS(S/\tV )17674 of' 05.08.2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition l\cL, 1894 & /\\,vClr'cI No. 512005-06 of Village Masooclabad, Delhi) CORAM: I-ION'BLE MI{. JUSTICE SUN I L GA U R OROER -----

14.03.2012 I. 1:01' 'Najafgarh Oepo/, MNTS Projeel', 610 bighas and 13 biswas of land of Village Masooclaba.d was acquired vide Notilication of 5 th August, 2003 under Section 4 or the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which was followed by Noti of August, 2003 uncleI' Section (, of t.he [,and ACCluisition Act, 1894 in l}assinQ of !\ ward NO.SI2005··06 '-, S!.r2llltinR COllll)Cllsatioll at the raLe of' Rs.! 5.70 lacs I)er acre on the basis . . of indicative price fixed by the Government or NC'"!, or Delhi ro!" the agricultural lands in Delhi. ') In the relcrcnce sough1 by the ciaimciJ1ts, interest per annulTl was c:rantcc! bv the RcICrcncc Court Illl' the ,'x'Tiod of two veal'S, "-...' .I . . - J i,e., fl-orn the dalC:' of lixillg oj' the rninirnulll agricult.ural price Llpto the elale ol'Notilicat.ion, i.e., compensation amount. stood enhanced to Rs.18,84,OOO per acre for the acquired land ill question.

¶3In the instant appeals, further enhancement. or Rs.50 la.cs per acre is sought by the claimants, \vhereas the respondent in their appeals have sought setting aside of the impugned order of the Refe.renee Court clncl restoration or the ;\v"arcl. Since i:he grounds L!I'gcd in these ,:Ipp(:als Page 2 comIllon, therefore., by this comrnon order, these appeals are being disposed of.

¶4On behalf or the appellants/claimants, it is urged that the learned Reference Court has \,vrongly treateci acquired lands as clgricl.Ii1.lIreJi land and did not appreciate the potentiality or the acqllil-ccd land as building site <:Ind assessment or the cOlTlpcnsation in respect of the 21cquircci land oLlPhl to have been made on the basis or the avcraQ,c auction relte of o residential and comrnercial plots in Dwarka [:lI1ci the rates by the D!)/\ \vhilc allotting altcmalivc plot.s is 8 Vedic! basis to arrive a.t true ll1C1rket.valuc of the acquired lanel in question.

¶5During the course or hearing, it was pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants/clai manls that Vi Ilage IVlasoodabad was urbani7cd in the year 1963 and zonal development plan was prepc.red by Delhi Development Authority in the year 1974 and t.he acquisitiol1 of the land in question was for the proposed residential purpose. iVluch reliance was placed upon ;\ vvarcl -]/J) pcrlai ning to Vi l lage Mangol pur I(hurd and ;\ward (FxYW·-l/4) of" Village IVlohamrnadpur Munirka (lr the I,and Acquisition Collector. wherein compensation was assessed while taking into consideration the '"&DO I'ales. It is pointed out that some parcel of acquired lanel (,buts the main Dclhi-Naiafgarh rnetallccl ,-oad and in the cldjoining, Village Nangli SC1krawati, there arc industries ami Naialu.arh Industrial Area is in rhe vicinity. . -

¶6According to the learned the appellants/claimants, the best piece of evidence, i .c. allotment of land in Vi Ilagcl\1asoociabad and Najafgarh by DD/\ to Delhi .la/ l30ard at the or Rs.20 lacs per (lcre in the year 1993 has been illegally discarded by the Reference Court. Reliance is placed upon the decisions reported in Tindel' & Ors. Vs. Union &. Anr. 200()(S,4)DRJ (Dn) 384: P .. N.Singh vs. Union 0/ Page :) India, 1997 I AI) (Del) 83; I-Iar; Chand vs. Union 91 (2001) DLT 602; Delhi /Jeve/opl'nent vs. Land Acqui .... ·itio/1 Collector & Ors .. 130(?()06) DT 1 Atma Singh (died) through LUs vs. Swte oj' /-IlI/Tana & An/, .. A! R 2008 SC 709; Nlahabi,. Prasad ,Sanlul\{! and Or..... Vs Collector. Cullad (lnd Ors .. (1987) I sec 587:. Tha/wl' Kuldeep Singh (D) Thr. L.R. & Or,..,' VS. Union ollnt/ill Ors .. AIR 20] 0 SC 1272; Om Prahash (D) hy LR .... · & Or . .,. VS'. Union of'lndia & A nl'., 2004 V III /\ D (SC) 37; Om Prakash vs. Stote ol/-llllTana & Or .... ·. 2011 IV AD (SC) 382; ,S'agunthllla (dead) through LR. ... ; vs. Special Tehsildar (L .. 4.) (lnd or.· ... , A I R 20 lOSe 984; Mahesh Dlittlltrajl 711irthkar ps. State AIR 2009 SC 2238, to assert lhat. the compensation claimed ill these appeals is just and reasonable.

¶7On behalf of the respondents, it was asserted by !carned Senior Counsel for the respondents that adopt.ion or the auction rates of DDA O!'

1.&1)0 rates in rcslx:ct of agricultural land stands negated by the J\pcx Court in decisioll in Lal Chand vs. Union and Anr .. (2.009) 15

¶769It. was ;:llso un2.cd bv !earned counsel "or the rcslx)ndcnts that .......... despite Viliage Masooclabcld being declared to be urbani7eel, the acquircd land in c]ucstion continued t.o be used as cll.!ricullllral land and '--' . t I' \"11 1\1 I "1 i I \"11 .anccs (), ! I. age I! ango pur I"..wrc ane. I I. age Mohammadpur Munirka arc of' no avail and the inst.ance of allotrnent of land hy 1)1)/\ in of Delhi .lal l30arcl cannot be. treated to be representative price of the lands in the vicinity as the evidence is lacking regarding said instances to be comparable for determining the market \faiue of' the land in question. Reliance was placed upon decision or Apex Court. in S'utpal & 01',\", Vs. Unio/1 (! 997) I 1 sec 423 1.0 assert t.hat if' in a shOll period t.here is a sharp illcrcclsc in price.. them lhe usual prcvalcnl trcnd in the il1<'1rkct, such an instance C('UlIlOl. he taken as Page 4 .J ., ;. real istic price un less and unti I the reasons for such sharp rise arc eAplained and there is no explanation to justify the adoption of Delhi .led 130ard instance to determine the market value of' the acquired lanel in question. R c. As regards the potentiality of the <Kquired lanel in question I:; concerned, it is contended by learned Sen iot' counsel 1'01' the respondents that no development activity took place in the vicinity nor any building activity had started ill the adjoining areas despite VillagelVlasoodabad being declared as urban and so the decisions rei ied upon by the appellants/claimants are distinguishable on facts.

¶9In the appeals preferred by the respondehts, enhancement in the tti compensation amollnt is assailed on the ground that the annual increase to be given is dependent upon the nature of evide.nee led and in the instant matters, there is no evidence shovving increase in the market price of the land in question till its acquisition. It is asserted that doing away of classification of acquired lands in question by Reference Coun is illogical and without 81lY justificalion. Thus. setting asicle of the impugncdju<igmcnt and restoring of the Award of the Land Acquisition Collector is sought by the respondents.

¶10Factors and test to determ ine the true market value of the acquired land have been restated' by the Apex Court in its recent decision in vs. "-"pecial Teh .. ·,-ildar (Lund Acquisition) Tamil Nallu HOllsing Board. (20 10) 13 sec 384, in these \vorcls:- "Cc)!nparable sales instonces are the salest r17.ethod for determining the n'lOrkel value ol the acquired land and CiS laid down in Shoji l(uriako,..,e v. inchon Oil Corpl1. Ltd, (200 I) 7 sec 650. il should ,'i'O/ isfj; the /clctors, inter olio. 0) the sale must be (I r;:enuine IrunsClc/ion,'

(2) the sale deed must have heen e.x:eculed at the tirne pro.x:il'l'loie to the date of issuance oj' notificotion under S'ec!ion 4 of lhe Act; (3) _ ':"?E'!!!. IAi\pp. No. 121/2010 & Connected Appeals ofVillClgc [V1(lSoocL:IIJacl Page 5 Ihe land covered hy the sale I'l?/JS/ he in the vicinity of' (he acquired hInd: (4) the fond c01'C:rec/ hy the sale must he sirnilor /0 the acquired land: ond (5) ,yize o/Ihe pint uj'lh(;' lond covered hy Ihe safe be cOl'nparobie 10 (he ocelLlired land. The sales instances should jJl'efc!rah(v he closes! /0 Ihc dale oj'lhe l'7oujZcalion os Ihen alone it would satisfji Ihe of' f jJl"incijJ/cs confer17plafcc/ IHIL/er SeClion 23 0/ the /leI, os held in 1'."01711'01' Singh v, Union (I India. (J 998)8 .r::;CC 136. " I I. Ilavinl'.. heard learned counsel ,'Ot" t.he panics in these matters and upon perusal or the impugned judgment, evidence on record and the decisions cited, I proceed on the premise that the burden of proving inadequacy of the com pensation amount IS upon the a ppell ants/c la i m ants. Now 'i t be , whether the IS to seen as to appellants/claimants have been successful in discharging t.his burden or not..

¶12No doubt, purpose for which the acquisition IS made IS an irnportant. factor, but the question as to whether the acquirecl ianc1 has pOlcmial value or not, is primarily one or depending upon its condition, situation, USCI' 10 \vhich it is put or is i"c;}sonably capable or being put and proximity Lo rcsidcntiai, comillercial or industrial or insLitutional area. The existing amenities like water, electricity, possi bi I ity of their further extension and the prospects of development in the area have to be taken into consideration. It has been so reiterated bv J the Apex Court ill Atma Singh (supra). It is in this c.ontext,' have scrutini/.cd the evidence on record ancl , fincl that there is hal'ellv anv j.f evidence regarding the topogrcq.ihy or the area acijoining the ;:lcquircd land in question and the evidence led rCQarclinQ the ak.s' shizro (!-:xYW- !........ ,--' 21!) of this village docs not thm"'i any iight on this viLai (ISI'CC1., except thal the evidence !ed to prove this (Ic\vcrsciv rcllccl.S [halOn the eas1crn :-;icleol' Village M(/.\'Uoduhud. there i:; Najafgarh drain, __ __ ____ [.1\./\ P p. No, 11,2'1/2010 &: Co 11!J cctcd A p pea Is () I Vi i hgc M ;:lsooci;;il1Jc1 • instead of enhancing, the pot.entiality, rather diminishes it. The vvitm;ss who was got examined to prove the oks shizro 01' Village Nougli Sa/U'OHiOl! (Lx. PW -4/1) concedes that the rncl21 lied road between Vi! iage Nangli Sakra'vvati and Village j\l/asooeioiJoc/ is not reflected in the ok')' L' shiZl·o. Lvidcllcc ot'lhis witness (P\V-4) instead of advancing the case of the appellants/claimants regarding the potentiality, reduces the potentiality oi'the acquired land in question.

¶13'There is no evidence to establish the comparability of the acquired lands under A\vard (Ex.PW-1I3) pertaining to Village Mangolpur Khurd and under A ward (Ex.PW- \ /4) of Vi Ilage Aj()hCll'nmadpul" J\I/unirk,a with the acquired land in question. Rather, as per evidence of the concerned ()f(icial (PW··l0), Award (Ex.PW .. I 011) pertained to West Patel Nagar i'or Metro Project. Thus, in the considered opinion or this Court, I{cferencc Court. has rightly excluded the aforesaid Awards (Ex.PW-I/J & 1->\.PW-1I4) to determine the market value oCthe acquired land in (IUestion. ScI C servirw c\CIJosition or claimants IJOremialit), of ,:lCquired lands in question, in the absence or corroborat.ive evidence, is not enough to return positive finding on this crucial aspect, particularly in view of the fact that evidence regarding industries being there in the vicinity of acquired lands is lacking.

¶14So far as the Delhi .la! Board inst.ance (Ex.P\V-4/\) is conce,rned, r find that even its comparability with acquired land in question is not eSLablished as the \,vitness (P\V-5) who has deposed in respect of this transaction has conceded that he is not able to lei I the distance from the said land to the land in question. 'T'hercCore, Rcfcl'encc Court has !'ightly not relied upon the De/hi )0/ 8oo/'c/ instance (Ex.PW-4/1).

¶15It has come in evidence Ol'lhc appellants/claimants that there is no (Jovcrnnlcnt hospit.al or college in Village Masoodobad and the evidence IAApp. No.!I21/2o-J 0 & Connected Appeals of Village Masooclabacl Page '7 rCL':arciim!.. the accluired land in question lxing surrounded by developed --...' ........... colonies is lacking. In the f;]ce or such dclicienL evidence .. i.here is no scope for cnh<:'1I1cement of compensation in the instant appeals. Such d conclusion is being drawn while keeping in view the ratio of the pr'cccdents cit.ed. Ilaving railed to establish the potentiality of the acquired land in question, the appellants/claimants have to remain content with t.he assessment of compensation on the basis of the indicative price of the agricultural land by Government of NCT of Delhi as undisputedly, the acquired land in question were being used for agricultural purpose at. the tirne of its acquisition. 16, Upon scrutiny or the evidence on record, it becomes qUlle apparent that despite Village i\I/asooc/abad being declared as urban, the acc]uired land in (IUestion were heirH2 used for dL'Ticultural 1)t.II',JOSe bv the • "-'"

1.......... appellants/claimant.s and so, adoption or indicmivc price of agl'icultural lands by (iovcrnlllen( or NeT or Delhi appears to be a reasonable criteria for dctcrmininl.! the lTlarket value 01' the acquired land in '--' question, as on the date of under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition llei. 1894, Such a view is being taken as the acquired land in question \;vas admittcdly undeveloped and therefore, adoption 0/ DD/! auction rates or lA .. tDO rates is not permissible in view of the. dictum or •. the /\pex Court in Lal Chand (supra) .. which has been quoted \vith apprc)"vai by the Apex Court in its latesl decision in Thakur Au/deep Singh (supra). 17, I{cgarding lIlcrc(]sc or I (Y% per annum over and above the minimum indicative price lixed hy C;ovcrnmcnt of Ncr of Delhi, the same cannot. be assailed by the respondent as the Rci'e.rcncc Courl has done so while relying upon decision of the Apex Court in Union of' India )JS. Harpat,

(2009) 14 sec 375, 'fhi::;; that the - .

1.J\.!\pp. No. 421/2010 & Conncctcd Appeals of Village Masoodabacl Page n RcJc:rcnce Court was justified in ihc increase of I CY% ." ... per' annunl while relying upon the decision in Horp(fl (supra). I X. In the light oC the I'orc-going naITatioI1, I find no infirrnity in the impugned .judgment in which I'air compensation has been assessed in respect of the acquired land in question. Reference Court has rightly not classitlcd the acquired land in question into 'A' category and '13' categqry, as Land Acquisition Collector in the ;\'vvard in question has unequivocally stated that. no classification or the acquirc.:d land is rcquinxl to be clone as the acquired land is leveled.

¶19Consequentially, the appeals of the appel!anLs/claim:.lnLs as well as appeals or Union of India arc dismisseci, while leaving the pcHLics 1.0 be;'!!' e, their own costs. Registry is direcLed 10 renliL lhe corrlpensaLion amount, • if any, deposited by either side with the Registrar General of this Court, ..;:;:04"'''* t.o the conccl'I'lCd I\c i'ercncc C uu rt. March 14, 2012 pkb ._---- IA!\pp. No. ·1·21/201 () 8.: Connector! Appeals of Village Masoor:/ahad _ I L GA UR) .rUBG E 9 n _ ._ ..... I:SI!!!? ()

• :I: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +L,A.APP.470/2010 Reserved on : February 08, 2012 Pronounced on : March 14, 2012 HARDESH KUMAR & ORS ..... Appellant versus LJOI & ANR 'rhrough: Mr.B.D.Sharma, Mr.S.K.Rout, Ms.Sukhda Dhamija 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 (lZelating to Notification No. F.7/60/2001lL&B/LA/MRTS(S/W)17674 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'BLEMR .. SUNIL GAUR