Ramesh Chand & Ors v. UOI & Anr

ORDER %

15.07.2011 For orders see LA.APP.13/2007. -j—r 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. h. u.-i. - '5; :ll 1^ '?!• ' 1 •Uij : iv. '! / * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + - Roshan Lai UOI & ORS Date of Decision: 75^^ lulv. 2011 LA.APP. 13/2007 Appellant Through: Mr. S.K.Rout & Mr.N.S.Dalai, 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, 1/.APP.584/2008, LA.APP.585/2008, LA.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) , I CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEPNANDRAJOG

¶1Whether the Rep(3rters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ;

¶2To be referred to Reporter or not? Page ! of 8 / •'I: % y . E n. V: X Whetherthe judgmentshould be reportedin the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAIOG. 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 4 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 Blands at n,77,083/- per bigha. 3_ Land owners sought referenceunder 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 differentdates.

¶4The orders by which referenceshave 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. 5/ • 1would note that all orders have been passed by the sameJudge. It is apparentthatthe learnedJudge deciding the references,was more concerned with the units which he would earn.

¶6The problemwhich he has createdfor the Appellate Court is that evidence is scattered in various referencesand differentpieces of evidence has been consideredin different orders, and further with respect to the same evidence. Page 2 of8 / k • W! N-I-! differentreasoningare to be found in differentorders. It lias only made tlie journeyof this Gourta littlelonger. '7 jh0 Reference Court has enhanced the compensationto ?2,17,374/-per bigha for Block Aland and ^1,86,123.38 per bigha for Block B land. A perusal of the variousdecisionswould show, and indeed learned counselfor the partiesso concede,the learnedTrialJudge was 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. g Thus, for purposesof the instantdecisionreference is being made to the evidenceled in LAC No.178/2004. It may be jpiighlightedthat the land owners, in different references were relying upon eitheror all the above4 exhibits.

¶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 pertainsto 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 m the said sale deeds as reflectedof the marketvalue of land in villageBaprolafor the reason if the principleof contiguityis to be^pplied,entireDelhi would becomeone unit. •LA.App.No.13/2007 Page 3 of8 T!

¶11Different reasons have 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:- • 11 J •\>t

(i) The stated part sale consideration in sum of 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.

(iii) . The purchaser was a student at the time of the transaction and there was no evidence of his having any source of incorrie.

(iv) No steps, were taken to obtain no objection certificates fronri 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 'f • «l •W Page4of8 /

¶1ai'i-.fn?-! 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

¶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 North, 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.

17.^ In other words the locationaladvantage 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, Page 5 of8 / ii k. <^7-v.. \€? and I note that the residentialcolony of Vikas Puri abuts the agriculturallands of villageBaprola.

¶18^ Thus, the reasoningof the learned ReferenceCourt pertaining to not relying upon the sale deeds of villages Nilothi, Mundka and Najafgarhdoes not appearto be sound for the reasonthe learnedReferenceCourt has not consideredthe topologyof the area in its totalityand has failed to appreciate that villages Baprola, Nilothi, Mundka and Najafgarh are betweenthe 'V constitutedby NH-10 and Najafgarhroad. However, 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.P\A/-l/2and Ex.PW-1/3. The principlesof a samplingwould guid^ 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 hereinbeforenoted, 1 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, 1 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,1hold that it would be most unsafe to rely upon Ex.PW-1/4 to determine the fair market value of lands in village Baprola. a if. •a! •'I : i 'I •w «' •t•w

¶22In my decisiondated 8.7.2011,decidinga batch of Land Acquisition Appeals, lead matter being LA.App.No.784/2005lamna Vs. HO! &Ors.. pertaining to a notificationdated 25.2.1997,fair market value of categoryA lands in village Mundka was determinedat ?11,97,162/0per arfe and for category Blands the same was determinedat ?9,65,361.60 per acre.

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

¶24Since categorizationof the lands has not been questioned,ttius 1hold that for the acquired lands in village Baprola, pertaining to the notificationdated 12.8.1997,fair marketvalue of land could safely be assessedwith reference to the decision in lamna'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 Jams'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 same is nO,61,899.50 per acre. 25, The appeals stand disposed of decreeing that for such lands as have been put in category A(Block A) the compensationstands decreed in sum of ?12,52,264.30per acre and for such lands which are in category B(Block A), compensationdecreedis nO,61,899.50per acre. It is further decreed that on the enhanced compensationthe appellantswould be entitledto all statutory benefits as per statute as clarified in the decision reported as 93 (2001) DLT 569 Sunder 1/5. 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. JULY 15, 2011 mm . LA.App.No.13/2007 / (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE Page 8 of8 THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 13/2007 R05HAM LAL Through: Nerno. Appellant versus UOI & ORS, 'hrough: Nemo ....Respondents CORAN: HOW'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NAIMDRAJOG ORDER %

20.12.2011

¶1Perused the office note. It is correct that in para 25 of the judgment dated July 15, 2011 a typographical error has crept in, Reference to 'Blocl< A' (after Category B) in the fourth line !S incorrect.

¶2It is ciarified that para 25 of the judgment dated July 15, 2011 shall read as under:- "25. The appeals stand disposed of decreeing that for such lands as have been put in category A (Biock A) the compensation stands decreed in sum of ?12,52,264.30 per acre and for such lands which are in category B (Block B), compensation decreed is ?10.61.899.50 per acre." DECEMBER

¶202011 rk PRADEEP IMAf^DRAjOG,J.

$-7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 583/2008 RAMESH CHAND & ORS. Appellants Through: Mr.S.K.Rout, Ms.Sukhda Dhamija and Ms.Dimple Dhamija, Advocates. Versus UOI & ORS. Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate for R-1. Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG