Mahinder Singh v. UOI & Anr

ORDER

15.07.2011 For orders see LA.APP.13/2007. \ IN/C-Ssj

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. JULY 15, 2011 mm 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. •>-'' t. %'• X-IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % / + Roshan Lai UOI & ORS Date of Decision: 19^ lulv, 2011 LA.APP. 13/2007 Appellant Through: Mr. S.K.Rout & Mr.N.S.Dalal, Advocates Versus Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Standing Counsel

(LA), GNCT Delhi with Mr.Sachin Nawani and / Mr Siddharth Panda Advocates for R-1 AND LA.APP. 14/2007, LA.APP. 15/2007, LA.APP. 16/2007, LA.APP. 567/2008 LA.APP.582/2008, LA.APP.583/2008, LA.APP.584/2008, LA.APP.585/2008, iXa.APP.589/2008, LA.APP.590/2008, LA.APP.593/2008, LA.APP.597/2008, LA.APP.598/2008, LA.APP.604/2008, . LA.APP.606/2008. (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated

12.08.1997- & Award NO.5/DCW/2000-01, Village Baprola) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEPNANDRAJOG

¶1Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶2To be referred to Reporter or not? LA.App.No. 13/2007 Page 1 of8 1" V

¶3Whetherthe judgmentshould be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAIQG. I. (Oral)

¶1Above captioned appeals pertain to acquisition of agriculturallands comprised in the revenue estate of village Baprola. Acquisition commenced pursuant to a notification dated

12.8.1997 issued under Section of the Land Acquisition Act.

¶2As per award No.5/DCW/2000-01, the Land AcquisitionCollectorcategorizedthe acquiredlands into Block A and Block B. He determined fair market value of Block A lands at ?2,08,383/- per bigha and Block B lands at n,77,083/- perbigha.

¶3Land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Land AcquisitionAct and for reasons which are not very commendable, the learned Reference Court decided the references by passing orders on different dates.

¶4The orders by which references have been decided are dated

25.8.2006,

28.8.2006,

29.8.2006,

30.8.2006,

31.8.2006,19,9.2006,22.9.2006,29.9.2006and 30.10.2006.

¶51 would note that all orders have been passed by the same Judge. It is apparent that the learnedJudge deciding the references was more concerned with the units which he would earn.

¶6The problem which he has created for the Appellate Court is that evidence is scattered in various references and different pieces of evidence has been considered in different o/ders, and further with respect to the same evidence. Page 2 of8 'I '.iii , 1| /I. ^1,1 I ,1 it differentreasoningare to be found in differentorders. It has only madethe journeyof thisCourta littlelonger. The Reference Court has enhanced the compensationto ?2,17,374/-per bigha for Block Aland and n,86,123.38per bigha for Block Bland. Aperusal of the variousdecisionswould show, and indeed learnedcounselfor the partiesso concede,the learnedTrialjudgewas seizedwith *3 sale deeds dated 5.12.1996, 5.8.1996 and 19.5.1987, exhibited as Ex.PW-1/1, Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 in LAC No,178/2004. Exhibit marks in other references would be different. The learned Reference Court also discussed an agreement to sell dated 17.8.1996,'Ex.PW-1/4 in LAC No.178/2004, , Thus, for purposesof the instantdecisionreference is being made to the evidenceled in LAC No.178/2004. It may be highlightedthat the land owners, in different references were relyingupon eitheror all the above4exhibits.

¶9Ex.PW-1/1 pertainsto 1 bigha and 3 biswa of land - sold in the revenue estate of village Nilothi. Ex.PW-1/2 pertainsto 1bigha land sold in village Mundka and Ex.PW-1/3 perffainsto 1bigha land sold in villageNajafgarh.

¶10The reasoning of the learned Reference Court in various orders, refusing to place reliance upon the said sale deeds, is that the contiguity of the 3 villages with village Baprola would be no ground to treat the price of the land in the said sale deeds as reflectedof the marketvalue of land in villageBaprolafor the.reasonif the principleof contiguityis to be applied,entireDelhi would becomeone unit. Page3 of 8 / 'k TT --K s^.:. •V;/ I ,1.

¶11Different reasons inave been given by the learned Reference Court not to rely upon the agreement to sell, Ex.PW-1/1 whereunder for the date 17.8.1996, 12 bigha and 10 biswa of land in village Baprola was agreed to be sold for ^24 lacs per acre.

¶12The reasoning of the learned Reference Court, cumulatively read; with reference to hues of the view in the various impugned orders is:-

(i) The stated part sale consideration in sum of ?6 lacs was paid in cash.

(ii) The buyer did not enforce the agreement to sell and the parties settled for the amount to be refunded in sum of ?8.5 lacs in cash. (H'i) The purchaser was a student at the time of the transaction and there was no evidence of his having any source of income.

(iv) No steps were taken to obtain no objection certificates from the income tax or the revenue authorities.

¶13Cumulative effect aforesaid of the 4 circumstances •; would be, as per the different process of reasoning adopted, ^ that the transaction is shrouded with suspicion and thus would not be a safe guiding index to determine the fair market value of land in village Baprola. ^ "

¶14While enhancing the compensation, the learned Reference Court has adopted the price noted by the Government, being the minimum price for agricultural land in Delhi and depressing the same for category B land and without depressing the same for Category A land, enhanced the Page4of8 11: I) I U ii compensation by giving price rise @ 12% p.a. on the minimum price as notified.

¶15Learned counsel for the appellants would urge that a perusal of the map of the city of Delhi would reveal that as we proceed from the city of Delhi towards the township of Rohtak along NH-10, village Mundka is crossed; the lands of village Mundka abut NH-10. The map of Delhi would further show that Najafgarh road, leading to Delhi from Dhansa hits NH-10 near Daya Basti. To put it differently, as NH-10 crosses Daya Basti, Najafgarh road branches out; the point forming a 'V.

¶16In between Najafgarh road and NH-10, the space between the 'V has various villages. The village of Nilothi, Baprola, Mundka and Bakarwala are located in the said space. Standing on Najafgarh road and looking straight towards the Noijh, we find that first in the line is. village Baprola followed by the lands of village Bakarwala and then the land of village Mundka. In other words; whereas lands of village Baprola would be near Najafgarh road, proceeding along a straight line in the Northern direction would be agricultural land of village Bakarwala and finally the land in village Mundka and these lands would abut NH-10.

¶17In other words the locational advantage of lands in village Mundka would be that they abut NH-10. The locational advantage of the lands in village Baprola would be that though not exactly abutting Najafgarh road, they are extremely proximate to Najafgarh road. Being towards Najafgarh road, lands in village Bapria are near the urbanized part of Delhi, LA.App.No. 13/2007 I . j w and 1 note that the residential colony of Vikas Purl abuts the agricultural lands of village Baprola.

¶18Thus, the reasoning of the learned Reference Court pertaining to not relying upon the sale deeds of villages Nilothi, Mundka and Najafgarhdoes not appear to be sound for ft the reason the learned Reference Court has not considered the topo]£)gyof the area in its totalityand has failed to appreciate that villages Baprola, Nilothi, Mundka and Najafgarh are between the 'V constituted by NH-10 and Najafgarh road.

¶19However, it may be noted that small parcels ad measuring 1 bigha and 3 biswa, 1 bigha and 1 biswa respectively, were sold under the sale deeds Ex.PW-1/1, Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3. The principles of a sampling would guide the Court that to be a representativeof the whole, a sample must bear a reasonableproximationto the whole and if the sample is too meager, it would be a sample improperly so called and not a sample properly so called.

¶20Thus, not for the reasoning of the learned Reference Court, but for my reasoning hereinbefore noted, I hold that it would be unsafeto determinethe marketvalue of agriculturallands in village Baprola with referenceto the said 3 sale deeds.

¶21As regards the agreement to sell Ex.PW-1/4, I accord my concurrence with the reasoning of the learned Reference Court, it is sound and logical. For the 4 features pertaining to the said agreement to sell, as extracted hereinabove,I hold that it would be most unsafe to rely upon Ex.PW-1/4 to determine the fair market value of lands in village Baprola. App.No.13/2007 5; -"'R t ,!r I I 1/

¶22In my decision dated 8.7.2011,deciding a batch of Land Acquisition Appeals, lead matter being LA.App.No.784/2005lamna Vs. UP! & Ors.. pertaining to a notificationdated 25.2.1997,fair market value of categoryA lands in village Mundka was determined at m,97,162/0 per acre and for category B lands the same was determined at ?9,65,361.60 per acre.

¶23I have already held hereinabovethat the topology of the area would entitle equivalenceof agriculturallands in village Mundka with village Bakarwala as also the instant village, Baprola.

¶24Since categorization of the lands has not been questioned,thus 1hold that for the acquired lands in village Baprola, pertaining to the notificationdated 12.8.1997, fair market value of land could safely be assessedwith reference to the decision in /amna's case (supra) and by granting 10% increase in the value of the land, commencing 25.2.1997, being the notificationwith which Iwas concerned in Jmm's case (supra), instant notification being 12.8,1997, the increasedfair market value of land pertainingto categoryA lands is ^12,52,264.30per acre and for categoryBlands the 'j ' same is n0,61,899.50 per acre. k

¶25The appeals stand disposed of decreeing that for ! ^ch lands as have been put in category A(Block A) the compensationstands decreed in sum of n2,52,264.30per acre and for such lands which are in category B(Block A), compensationdecreedis n0,61,899.50per acre.

¶26It is further decreed that on the enhanced compensationthe appellantswould be entitledto all statutory •i' Page 7 of8 a: :i. •w. , f, I I y. benefits as per statute as clarified in the decision reported as 93 (2001) DLT 569 Sunder Vs. UP! except such appeals which were filed belatedly and delay was condoned; said appellants would not be entitled to interest for the period of delay. Proportionate cost is also decreed in favour of the appellants. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE JULY 15, 2011 mm / / Page 8 of8 1^1 !N THIf HiGH COURT OF DELHI AT ISIEW DELHI LA.APP. 13/2007 ROSHAN LAL Appellant Through; Nemo. versus UOI & 0R5. ....Respondents Through; Nemo CORAM: HOIM'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NArMDRAJOG ORDER %

20.12.2011 .,r Perused the office note. It is correct that in para 25 the judgment dated July 15, 2011 a typographical error has creiDt HI, Reference to 'Block A' (after Category B) in the fourth line is incorrect. 2, !t is clarified that para 25 of the judgment dated iuly 15, 2011 shall read as under:- "25 The appeals stand disposed of decreeing that i:cr such lands as have been put in category A (Block A) the compensation stands decreed in sum of ?12,52,254.30 per acre and for such lands which are in category B (Block 8), compensation decreed is no,61,899.50 per acre." PRADEEP NAMDRAjOG, j. DECEMBER.

¶202011 rk

$-10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 589/2008 MAHINDER SINGH Appellant Through: Mr.S.K.Rout, Ms.Sukhda Dhamija and Ms.Dimple Dhamija, Advocates. % Versus UOI & ORS. Through: Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate for R-1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG