Ravinder Kumar v. UOI & Anr

ORDER

14.03.2012 For orders see LA.APPA2l/2010, titled as Suresh Prasad llliasHari Kishan vs. Union of/ndia & Anr. March 14,2012 pkb NIL GAUR) 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. - , .-v .--- v U -.... r • • ...;"i - '. .. C >- .- . """ <- ""'" -< -, > .--- '-' < :... :/) :... <: V1 < tV' < .,...., '-'J > z Z f) z. < c r-1 C"\ .c: 0\ ;c, ,.- If', "7 "7 "'7' (. I c-C ("j ("",j "j (:.) ,1 r I '::::::> oC -...... \..C '....c \{;I :--- C/':. C' J ':::::t" I.r, C:..: c ceo C C ZZZZZZZ2:'Z.Z « < < <, < « < <. , _CCCOOl:,)COC"; 01 ("'I N C'! C'I ("'1 ,,1 01 (,.j rl ....... -- ...... - "'-..... '-'...... ---.., ---.:.. --.. ...... -... ....... -.... -...c ':J', r'-', r-tn ("..., "1" In In ',C '..0 r-- CiC YJ -:::t. "7 "7 "7 ..q '-n In C o COO C C 0 c

7.ZZZZZ ZZZ Z C (",1 r< ; .... ) --...: --.. x "T r"l 0: • .. '""\ Z < < . z >- 1""'. Vj < < o ::::.: '8 C',} 2; ("",,1 r'.j --... ............ 0- "<:j'if', r-r-- r-- -:) C () ZZz CL c.. c.. e:...c-e:.. «< «< c1 C ("'I X C/' 'f t.rl II; r-- {"- c ..... : ..... ZZZ . . C .. G .. Q. :::... !=- C_ «< «< o .::; ;-' ('I r',) (',l --- --- ---... \Q 1-- [,-. r----. f"- o C ZZZ , ' , Q.. 0... Cl.. «< «< < u I I N ' I i . ,e:.. Z . .-.: I J\.!\pp. No. 755/2010 I/\./\pp. No. 859/2010 I./\.!\ pp. No. 86)/20 I () I!\./\pp. No. 8661:2010 I,/\.!\pp. No. 869120 I 0 I.!\./\pp. No. 2112012 LA.!\pp. No. 756/20 i () I ,;\.App. i'io. 860/20 I 0 I.I\./\pp. I\JO. r[) I . . , N n" 0 :j 0 1 (. b I'/\.I\PI).I .. ·.,) I 1\ \. NI (> '711 " 1 I) J .1 pp. O. o() _.(, \, LA./\pp. No. 267/2011 LA.!\pp. No. 56/2012

1./\. /\pp. No. 861/20 J 0 I.A./\pp. No, 865/20 I 0 ! ,/\.!\pp. 868/2010 I 1\ A NI --")7/;('1 (' 01 .i\pp. O. __ .J ..I (Relating to Notification No, r:.7/60/2001/L&13/[.;\/MRTS(S/vV)17674 of 05.08.2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 5/2005-06 oLVillage Masooclabad, Delhi) CORAM: HON'BLEMR . .JUSTICE SUNIL GAUH OHDEH

14.03.2012 I. For 'Najaffsarh Depol. ;V/I(/S Projeel " 61 () bighas and I J biswas of' land 01' Village Masoodabacl was acquired vide NOli licaLioll of .sIll .!\ugust. 2003 under Sectiol1 4 01' Lhe I,and !\cquisiLion Act, 1894 which was bv Notificalion or Sill 2003 under Section 60Cthe .I __ ,. .. - - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 rcsu lting in passi ng 0 r Award No.5/2005-06 granting compensation at the rale of Rs.! 5.70 lacs per acre on the basis of indicative price fixed by the Government. of NeT of Delhi for the agricultural lands in Delhi.

¶2In the reference sought by the claimants,

(u) I 0°;;) pCI' annum was granted by the Rei'ercnce lor the perioci or two years. _ i.c., from t.he of lixing of the minilllurn agriculLural price ulOltn the elate of Notilicalion, i.e., compensation amount s\ooci enhanced Rs. !8,84.000 Ix:r acrc for the acquired i<'lJlci in Ljllestioll.

¶3In the instant I'urther enhanceillenl or Rs.SO lacs per acre is sought by the claimants, whereas the respondent ill their appea.ls have sought setting aside of the impugned order of the R.efcrcncc Court and restoration of the A\vard. Since the grounds urged 111 these appeals is U\.!\pp. No. 121 /2()] 0 & Connected Appeal:; of Village Mas()oc\c\l'lcl(.l COllllT10n, therefore, by this COllllllon order" these appeal::.: "liT •

1._" disposed or. 4, On behalf or the appellants/claimants. it is mged that lhe learned Reference Court has wrongly treated acquired lands as agricultural land and did not appreciate the potentiality of the acquired land as building site and assessment of the compensation in respect of the acquired land ought to have been made on the basis of the average auction rate of residential and cOllllllcrciai plots in Dwarka and the raLes cheJl'gcci by Lhe DD;\ while ailotting alt.ernative plots is a valid il;Jsi:::; t.o ,Hrive at. true market. valuc of the acquired land in question, 5, DUl'ing the course 01' hearing, it was pointed ouL by learned counscl for the appellants/claimants Lhat' Village was urbanized in the year 1963 and zOllal development pian was prepared by Delhi Development Authority in the year 19],4 and the acquisition of the land in qucstion was for the proposed l'csidcnLial purposc, Much I'cliancc: was placed Upl)n Award (Lx,PW·,Jl3) pertaining Lo Village Mangolpur Khurd and Av,/ard ([x,P\V-i/4) of VillagclVlohamrnadpur Munirka of the I ,and Acquisition Collector, wherein compensation \,vas assessed \vhile taking into consideration the L&DO l'dtCS, Il is pointed ouL thal somc parcel 01' acquired land (1bu15 t.he main De!hi-Najal'gal"il metalled road and in the adjoining Village Nangli S::iI<r;]wat.i. there arc industries and Najafgarh Inciustricd Area is in the vicinit\!, , J 6, According io the 1c,1rncd counsel for the (lppeliants/clai!'nams, best IJicce of ('vidence. i,c, allotment. o!'land in ViIl21[I:e iVIasoociabad and '-- Ndjafgarh by /)1)/\ te) Delhi .Ial Boarci :.11 lhc ,'::tLe or 1<.5,20 lacs per acre in the year 1993 has been illegally discarded by the Reference Court. Reliance is placed upon the decisions reported in Tindey Ors. v,'. Union & An!", 2000(54)DRJ (DB) P.N.Singh vs. Unionol IA!\pp, No, 421/20] 0 ('\i COllllected Appeals of Village MClsooli;:li);Jci ",',0.,.,. n' U India. 1997 I /\/) (Dcl) tn: I-fori Chand ps. Union 91 (2001) 1)1.1' 602; Delhi Developl'nent Aul/tori(F vs. Land Acquisition Collector & On .... 130(2006) DT I (DB): A InUi Singl' (died) through LRs vs. State & Anr .. AIR 2008 SC 709; IHahllhir Prm'iad Suntuka and Or .... '. Vs Collector. Cultack find Or . ..,' .• (1987) 1 sec 587; Thakur Kuldeep Singh (DJ Thr. L.R. & Or,\' lJS. Union & Ors., AIR 20 lose 1272; 0111 Prakash (D) hy LR ..... & Or.\'. v.,'. Union of'lndia & Anr .. 2004 VIII AD (SC) 37: Om Prakash vs. State !1myanu (.e Or,\', 20 J I I V /\D (SC) 382; SlIgunthala

(dead) through LRs I'."'. SjJeciu/ Teh ..... ildar (LA.) and ors.. !\ I R 20 JOSe 984: J\1ahe.\·/t Dattatmy Thirthlwr vs. State of' J\1aharashlra. /\ I R 2()09 SC 2238, to assert that . the compensalion claimed ill t.hese appeals is JUSl and'reasonable.

¶7On behalf of the rcspondent.s, it assei't.cd by learned Senior Counsel for the respondents that adoption or the auction rates of DDA m L&DO rates in respect of agricu!tural la.nd stands negated by the Ape.\ Court in decision in Lal Chand vs. Union ollndia and Anr., (2009) IS sec 769. It was also urged by learned counsel 1'01' the responde-tits that despite VillagcJ\!1asoociabad being declared be acquired land in question continued to be used :JS clgricultu]'ai iancl and tilcrcl(1rc,instanccs o( Vi!lage Mcl1lgolpm Khurcl ;:!ilcl Village Mohamllladplll' Munirka d!'e 01' no avail anci the instance or ;:dlotmcnl or land by DI)/\ in f'avour of' Delhi .lal l30ard c(:In1101 be t.reated to be rcplTscnt.ativc IJI'icc: or the lands in the vicinity as the evidence is lackin!2. ..! ,-' regarding said instances to be comparable ror the market value of the land in question. Reliance was placed upon decision of Apex Court in Satplli & Or.\', v. ... '. Union

(1997) I 1 sec 423 to assert that if in a short period t.here is a sharp inCl'casc in price., than ihe usual prevalent trend in the market, such an instance cannot. be taken as ! ./\1\ pp. N Cl. 421/201 () (I!.! Co n /leered II ppe;:;\.') () f Vi i 1;:lgc ,VI asoocl a be!d Page 4 · .. • (y realistic price unless and unt.il the reasons fOI' such sharp rIse are explained and there is no explanation to justify the adoption of Delhi .ral Board instance to determine the market value of the acquired land in question.

¶8As regards the potentiality of the acquired land ill question \s concerned, it is contended by learned Senior counsel for thc respondents that no development activity took place in t.he vicinit.y nor any building activity had started in the adjoining areas cieSIJitc. Village Masoodabad being declared as urban and so t.he decisions relied upon by the appellants/claimants are distinguishable on facts.

¶9In the appeals by the responcieilts, enhancement 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 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 or classification of acquired lands in question by Reference Coun is illogical and without any justi Clcation. Thus, setting aside of the impugned judgment: and restoring, of the /\\,vard or the LAlnci ;\cquisitioll Collector is sought by the respondent.s . .I O. Factors and test to dettT1TIinc the true market value of the acquired land have been restatecl by the Apex Court in its recent clecision in RadhallJudali;Jl(lr 1',11. Special TeiJsildaF (Land /4.cquisitionj Tmnil NlIdu I-lousing Board, (2010) 13 sec 384, in these \vords:- "Cornparable sales instances are the safest rnethod pi/' determining the Inarkel value C!/the acquired land and as laid down in She,:!'; Kuriakose v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., (200 I) 7 sec 65(), it .should sali,sfl) the inter alia,

(I) the sale must be a genuine transaction: (2) the sale deed must have heen executed 01 the time proximate /0 the dale 0/ issuance 0/ noti/lcation under ,','celiol1 4 0/ ;he .lief: (3) - - IAApp. No. 1j·21/2010 ('? COllnected Appeals ofVil!agc Mclsooc!ahacl Page 5 " •• rhe land covered bv the sale rnust he in the vicini/v of' fhe .' J ,_ acquired land,' (4) rhe land covered by the sale J'nusl he similar to rhe acquired land. and (5) size o/the plot (:I til(' land covered by the ,',o/e be cornporable w the uccjuired land. The sales instances should he closes! to the date o/Ihe nOlificolion os then alone i! would satis/i; Ihe touchstone of'the princieles conlcmp/oted under ,Secli()17 .?3 0/ the /lel. os held in /'(01111:01" Singh v. Uni(ln 0/ Indio, ( 199· oJ' .0 S'C"(" 1 "') 6 "

¶00 '., '._ .. ). I I. Having heard learned counsel for the parties in t.hese 11121 L1 cr',; aile! upon perusal or the impugned judgment, evidence on record cllld the decisions cited, I proceed on the l)I"cmise that the burden of proving inadequacy of cOll1pensal.lon ClITloLlnt 1<:: upon appellants/claimants. Now it IS to be seen as to whethc.r appellants/claimants have been successful in discharging this burden or not.

¶12No doubt, purpose for 'vvhich the acquisit.ion IS made is !-1n important factor, but: the quest.ion as 1.0 whether the acquired land has potential value or not, is primariiy one or fact depending upon its condition, situalion, user io \vhic:11 it is put. or reasonahly ulpablc of' being put and proximity to residential, commercial or industrial or institutional area. The C' x '1 st'll'l 0 "i"I1f" 1'1'1 ti es -,. '- b l. I . " .. like water., electricitv. .' . possibility of their further extension ancl the prospects of' c1eveloprncnt in the area have to be taken into It hclS been so reiterated bv .' the i\1')c.x COUll in A/nUl Singh (sLI\JI'a). !t is in t.his c.ontext, I have scrutinized the evidence 011 record and I find lhat there is hardlv anv ,/ ,I evidence regarcling the topography of t.he area adjoining the acquired land in quest.ion and the evidence Icd regarding the elks shizra (F:x.PW .. 2/1) of this village docs not throw any light on this vital aspect, except thaI the evidence Icc! to prove this document cic!vel'scly rcllccLs on the castel'!'l side of' Masooe/Llhac/., there is drain. \.vhieh -......- . '--- ' I./U\pp. No. tJ·21 /2()JO &. Connected i\pp(;als ofVillClg(' rvL:1sooci;lilJd F';:lge 6 instead of enhancing the potent.iality, rather diminishes it. The \vitncss who was got. examined to prove the aks :.,'hizra of Village Netrlgli S'okrawati CLx,P\V-4/1) concedes that the metalled road between Village Nangli Sakrawati and Village Masoodabad is not ref-lected in the oks shizra. Lvidence of this witness (PW-4) in'stead of ;:ldvancing the case of appellants/clai mants reoardin o b b jJOlcnt.i ali ly, reduces potentiality of the acquired land in question.

¶13There is no evidence to establish the comparability of' the c\cquired lands under ;\ ward (Ex. PW -113) pertaining to Vi llagc Mangolpur Khurd and under Award (Ex.PW-1I4) of Village Mohom.rnodpur Munirko with the acquired land in question. Rather, as per evidence of the concerned _ olTicial (PW-IO), Award (Ex.PW-1 011) pert.ained to West Patel Nagar for Metro Project. 'rhus, in the considered opinion of' this Court, Reference Court has rightly excluded the aforesaid /\\vards (r>cPW-1I3 &. Ex.P\V-I!4) to determine the ITlarke1 value oj' the acquirccllcind in question. serving deposition of claimants regarding potentiality of acquired lands in question, in the absence of corroborative evidence, is not enough to return IJositive on this crucial asrX:Cl, ........ "-' • J in vic,\v of the n:lCl 1h::11 regarding induslries being there in the vicinity 01' acquired lands is lacking.

¶14Sobr as the Delhi Jet! Boon..! instance ') is concerned, I lind that even its comparability with acquired land in question is not established as the witness (PW .. S) who has deposed in respect of this transaction has conceded that he is not able to tell the distance from the said land to the land in question. "fherefore, Reference Court has rightly not relied upon the Delhi Ja/ Board instance .. 4/1). ] 5. It has come in evidence ol'the appeI12dlts/c.lainlan1.s that. there is no (;overnment hospital or college in Vi Ilage Mosoodahod and [he evidence \.iU\pp, No,IJ,21/2()] 0 &, Connected i\ppeals ol'Villagc Masooc!ah;\c! Page -; regardi.ng the acquired land in question being surrounded by developed colonies is lacking. [n the face of such evidence, there is no scope for enhancement of compensation in the instcmt. appcctls. Such a conclusion is being drawn while keeping ill view the ratio or the precedents cited. Ilavillg to establish the potcntictlily of the acquired land in question, the appellants/claiilldnls have to remain contenl with the or compensation 011 the basis of the indicative price or the agricultural land by (Jovemment of NeT of Delhi as undisputedly, the acquired land in question \vere being used for agricultural purpose at the timc of its acquisition.

¶16Upon scrutiny of thc evidcncc on recorel, it becomcs quite apparent that despite Village !Vlasoodahad being declell'ed as urban, the / acquired land in question were being used for agricultur(ll purpose by the appellants/claimants and so, adoption or indicat.ive price or :Jgriculu.II·Cll lands by Government of NeT of Delhi clppears to be a rcasonabic criteria for determining the market value or 1hc acquired !z\Ilci in qucsuon, as ()rl the elate 01' Noli !,ication uncler Section 4 or rhe Land Acquisition //u. 1894. Such a view is being taken as the acquired land in question, was admittedly undeveloped and Lheref()re, adoption ol Df)A ({uction rates or L&DO rates is not permissible in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in Lal Chand (supra), \vhich has been quoted \vith approval by the Apex Court in its latest decision in Thakur Kuldeep Singh (supra). J 7. Regarding Increase or J per annlllTl over (:Ind above minimum indicative price iixed hy CiovcrnmcnL of NeT cd' Delhi, the same cannot be assailed by the respondent as the COLIrt has done so while. relying upon decision of' Lhe Apex COL!rl in Union of' India VS. 1-/t1l1wt, (2009) 14 sec ]75. This COLIrt finds th::IL [he I'!\.i\pp. No. 421/2010 g Connected Appcclis ofViliage M;lsoociahJci • I{e/Crcnee Court was justified in granting the aforesaici increase or 1 (y% pcr allnum while relying upon the decision in I-/arpol (supra).

¶18In the light of the fore-gping narration, I find no inlirrniLY III the impugned judgment in which 1:'Jir c()IT1pensaLion has been :Jssesscc! in respect or the acquired land ill question. Re.:fcl'CIlCC Court has rightly nol. classified the acquired land in question into ';\' categol'Y and '13' c:ltcgory, as Land Acquisition Collcctor in the ;\ ward in quest.ion has unequivocally stated that no classi lication or the acquired land is required to be done as the acquired land is leveicd. J 9. Consequentially, the appeals of the appellants/claimants as well as appeals of Union of India arc ck;lllisseci, while leaving the IXlrt.ies to hear their own costs. Registry is dilTcteci to remit. the eompcnsati(JIl amounl .. if any., deposited by either side with the.: Registrar General or' COLlrt.. to the COI'lCCIT1Cd l\cfcrcl1cc Cuurl. M a hi 4, 20 1 2 pkh

1.1\.1\ P p. N (). 1J21 /201 () Co n n cctcc! /\ p pea Is (J f Vi IVl;IS()ocicl h,id ... .-,-- "-" <: .. / (SUNrL GAUR) JUDGE Page 9

• * IN rfllE HIG·H C()URT OF I)ELH:l A NEW l)E.L:HI Reserved on: February 08, 2012 Pronounced on : March 14, 2012 RA VINDER KUMAR ..... Appellant versus U01& ANR Through: Mr.B.D.Sharma, Mr.S.K.Rout, Ms.Sukhda DhamUa and Mr.B .K.Routray, Advocates ..... Respondent 'rhrough: 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. 7/60/200 lIL&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'HL.E MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR