Rame v. UOI & Anr

ORDER %

15.07.2011 For orders see LA.APP.13/2007. —f-r PRADEEP NANDRAJOG,J. ^ JULY15, 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. • ; •r'' m THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT BMEW DELHI % + Roshan Lai Date of Decision: 15^" lulv, 2011 LA.APP. 13/2007 Appellant Through: Mr. S.K.Rout & Mr.N.S.Dalai, Advocates Versus UOI & ORS f ... Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Standing Counsel

(LA), G1\!CT Delhi with Mr.Sachin Nawani and Mr Siddharth Panda Advocates for R-1 AND LA.APP. 14/2G07, 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, LA.APP.589/2008, LA.APP.590/2008, LA.APP.593/20Q8._ LA.APP.597/2008, .LA,APP.598/2008, Ql^PP.604/2008^ LA.APP.606/2008. (Relating to NotificatioTTljTs-^r'^ate^

12.08.1997 & Award N0.5/DCW/2OOO-OI, Village Baprola) CORAIVl; . .. • HON'BLE NR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

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

¶2To be referred to Reporter or not? LA.App.No. 13/2007

¶3Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP MANDRAiOG, L (Oral)

¶1Above captioned appeals pertain to acquisition of agricultural' lands comprised in the revenue estate of village Baprola. Acquisition commenced pursuant to a notification dated 12.8.1997 issued under Section^ 4 o? the Land Acquisition Act. /

¶2As per award No.5/DCW/2000-01, Land Acquisition Collector categorized the acquired lands 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 ^1,77,083/- per bigha. }

¶3Land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and for reasons which are not very commendable, learned Court decided 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,

29.9.2006 and 30.10.2006.

¶51 would note that all orders have been passed by 7^ the same Judge. It is apparent that the learned Judge 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 orders, and further with respect to same evidence, LA.App.No. 13/2007 different reasoning are to fDe found in different orders. It has only made-the journey of this Court a little longer.

¶7The Court has enhanced compensation to ^2,17,374/- per bigha for Block A land and 86,123.38 per bigha for Block B land. A perusal of the various decisions would show, and indeed learned counsel for the parties so concede, the learned Trial Judge was seized with 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 Court also discussed an J agreement to sell dated .17.8.1996, Ex.PW-1/4 in LAC No.178/2004.

¶8Thus, for purposes of the instant decision reference is being made to the evidence led in LAC No.178/2004. It may be highlighted that the land owners, in different references were relying upon either or all the above 4 exhibits.

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

¶10The reasoning of the learned 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 [and in the said sale deeds as reflected of the market value of land in village Baprola for the. reason.if the principle of contiguity is to be applied, entire Delhi would become one unit. LA.App.No.13/2007 J

¶11Different reasons have been given by the learned Court not to rely upon the agreennent to sell, Ex.PW-1/1 whereunderfor 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 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.

(iii) 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 differentprocess ofjreasoningadopted, 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 compensation,, learned Court has adopted price noted by Government, being the minimum price for agricultural land in Delhi and depressing the same for category B land and without depressing same for Category A land, enhanced LA.App.No.13/2007 s compensation by giving price rise @ 12% p.a. on the minimum price as notified.

¶15^ .Learned 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 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. /•

¶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 Ci 'n>J' and I note that the residential colony of Vikas Puri abuts the agricultural lands of village Baprola.

¶18Thus, the reasoning of the learned Court pertaining to not relying upon the sale deeds of villages Nilothi, Mundka and Najafgarh does not appear to be sound for the reason the learned Reference Court has not considered topology of the area in its totality and 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-i/2and Ex.PW-1/3. The principlesof a samplingwould guide the Court that to be a representative of the whole, a sample must bear a reasonable proximation to the whole and if the sample is too meager, it would be a sample improperly so called and not a sample properly so called. '20. Thus, not for reasoning of learned Reference Court, but for my reasoning hereinbefore noted, I hold that it would be unsafe to determine the market value of agricultural lands in village Baprola with reference to the said 3 sale deeds.

¶21As regards agreement to sell Ex.PW-1/4, 1 accord my concurrence with the reasoning of the learned Court, it is sound and logical. For the 4 features pertaining to said agreement to sell, as extracted hereinabove, I hold that it would be most unsafe to rely upon Ex.PW-1/4 to determine fair market value of lands in village Baprola. LA.App.No. 13/2007

¶22In my decision dated 8.7.2011, deciding a batch of Land Acquisition Appeals, lead matter being LA.App.No.784/2005 tamna Vs. UP! & Ors.. pertaining to a notification dated 25.2.1997, fair market value of category A lands in village Mundka was determined at fll,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 hereinabove that the topology of the area would entitle equivalence of agricultural lands in village Mundka with village Bakarwala as also instant village, Baprola. j^r

¶24Since categorization of the lands has not been ' questioned, thusJ_hold that for the acquired lands in villaoe _^aproia. pertaininn tn the notification dated 12.8.1997. fair market value of land could safely be assessed with reference ^ the decision mJamna's case (supra) and bv granting 10% incre^e in the value of the land, commencing 25.2.1997, being the notification with which I was concerned in lamna's case(5upra). instant ocmcation being

12.8.1997, increased fair market value of land pertaining to category A lands is ^12,52,264.30 per acre and for category B lands the same is ?10.61.899.50 per acre.

¶25The appeals stand disposed of decreeing that for such lands as have been put in category A (Block A) the compensati.on stands decreed in sum of ^12,52,264.30 per acre and for such lands which are in category B (Block A), compensation decreed is ?10,61,899.50 per acre.

¶26It is further decreed that on enhanced compensation the appellants would be entitled to all statutory LA.App.No.13/2007 . > benefitsas per statuteas clarifiedin the decision reportedas 93 (2001) DLT 569 .SunderVs. UP! exceptsuch appealswhich were filed belatedlyand delay was condoned;said appellants would not, be entitled to interest for the period of delay. Proportionatecost is also decreedin favourof the appellants. JULY 15, 2011 , mm • • • . LA.App.No.13/2007 -(PRADEEPNANDRAJOG) . JUDGE I % m THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 13/2007 ROSHAN LAL Through: Nemo. versus UOI & ORS. Through; Nemo Appellant ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG ORDER

20.12.2011 Perused the office note. It is correct that in para 25 of the judgment dated July 15, 2011 a typographical error has crept in. to 'Block A' (after Category B) in the fourth line is incorrect.

¶2it is clarified 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 {Bloci< A) the compensation stands decreed in sum of ^12,52,264.30 per acre and for such lands which are m category B (Block B), compensation decreed is 61,899.50 per acre." DECEMBER 20, 2011 rk v' . . PRADEEPMAMbRXjOG,J.

$-15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 604/2008 RAME Appellant Through: Mr.SX.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.JUSTICEPRADEEP NANDRAJOG