Lakhi Ram & Ors v. UOI & Anr

ORDER

15.07.2011 For orders see LA.APP.13/2007. 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. I? » '• v. I r */ IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % . Date of Decision: 15^^ lulv. 2011 + LA.APP. 13/2007 Roshan Lai Appellant Through: Mr. S.K.Rout & Mr.N.S.Dalal. Advocates Versus UOI & ORS / ... 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, 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) / CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

¶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 ^ ! t •Hi f r-l-I, fi '1-'^ 1i # # -b .-'i: £

¶3Whetherthe judgmentshould be reportedin the Digest? PR^EEP NANDRAIOG.I. (Oral)

¶1Above captioned appeals pertain to acquisitionof 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/20p0-01, 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 ?1,77,083/- perbigha.

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 different dates.

¶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.

¶5I would 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. -4-0k w differentreasoningare to be found in differentorders. It has only madetliejourneyof thisCourta littlelonger. The Reference Court has enhanced the compensationto ?2,17,374/-per bigha for Block Aland and n,86,123.38per bigha for Blocl< 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 marl<s 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 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 villageMundka and Ex.PW-1/3 pertainsto 1 bigha land sold in villageNajafgarh.

¶10The reasoning of the learned Reference Court in various orders, refusing to place reliance upon the said sale de^s, 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.reason if the principleof contiguityis to be applied,entireDelhi wouldbecomeone unit. LA.App.No.1.3/2007 Page 3 of8 /

¶11Different reasons iiave been given by tlie 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 H, ^8.5 lacs in cash. i 1 ' • V

(iii) The purchaser was a student at the time of the f transaction and there was no evidence of his having any hj spurceof 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 nriarket value ^ of land in villageBaprola.

¶14While enhancing the compensation, trie 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 ,LA.App.No.13/2007 . Page4 of 8 -'j compensation by giving price rise @ 12% p.a. on the nriinimum 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. ^ U.

¶16In between Najafgarh road and NH-10, the space between the 'V has various villages. The village of Nilothi, I 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, proce,eding along a straight line in tfie 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, / . • '1 m -'J I-and I note that the residentialcolony of Vikas Puri abuts the agriculturallands ofvillageBaprola.

¶18Thus, the reasoningof the learned ReferenceCourt pertaining to not relying upon the sale deeds of villages Nilothi,Mundka and Najafgarhdoes not appearto be soundfor the reason the learned ReferenceCourt has not consideredthe topologyof 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 Najafgarhroad.

¶19However, it nnay be noted that small parcels ad-mea'^uring ,1 bigha and 3 biswa, 1 bigha and 1 biswa respectively, were sold under the sale deeds Ex.PW-1/1, i Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3. The principlesof a samplingwould i guide the Court that to be a representativeof the whole, a i sample must bear a reasonableproximationto the whole and if the sample is too meager, it would be a sample improperly ; so calledand not a sampleproperlyso called.

¶20Thus, not for the reasoning of the learned Reference Court, but for my reasoning hereinbefore noted, 1 hold that it would be unsafeto determinethe marketvalue of agriculturallands in village Baprola with referenceto the said 3 sale deeds.

21.^ As 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. 6of8 / f r.n"'-'- y." • • '.i I .'1 .•^ I? •j'

¶22In my decisiondated 8.7.2011,decidinga batch of Lapd Acquisition Appeals, lead matter being LA.App.No.784/2005lamna Vs. UOt &Ors., pertaining to a notificationdated 25.2.1997,fair market value of categoryA lands in village Mundka was determinedat m,97,162/0per acre and for category Blands the same was determinedat ?9,65,361.60 per acre. Ihave already held hereinabovethat the topology of the area would entitleequivalenceof agriculturallands in village Mundka with village Bakarwala as also the instant , village, Baprola. ® f

¶24Since categorizationof the lands has not been '''• ' questioned,thus Ihold 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 granting10% increase in the value of the land, commencing 25.2.1997, being the notificationwith which Iwas concerned in Jamnc/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 n0,61,899.50 per acre.

¶25The appeals stand disposed of decreeingthat for . such lands as have been put in category A(Block A) the 'i compensationstands decreed in sum of ?12,52,264.30per ^cre and for such lands which are in category B(Block A), compensationdecreedis n0,61,899.50peracre. It is further decreed that on the enhanced compensationthe appellantswould be entitledto all statutory Page 7 of8 / - • V I. >^1 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 / / "T—;• (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE Page 8 of8 i FHE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP, ],3/2007 ROSHAN LAL .....Appellant Through: Nemo, versus UOi & ORS. ....Respondents Through: Nemo CORAN; H(3r^!•BLE MR, JUSTICE PRADEEP NAMDRAJOG ORDER %

20.12.2011 I Perused the office note. It is correct that in para 25 of the judgment dated July 15, 2011 a typographical error has rrepi-in. Preference to 'Block A' (after Category B) in the fourth :!Pe is incorrect.

¶2It is clarified that para 25 of the judgment dated hjiy 15. 2011 shall read as under:- •"25. The appeals stand disposed of decreeing that for such lands as have been put in category A (Block A) the compensation stands decreed in sum of ?12,52,264.30 per acre and for such lands which are in category 8 (Block B), compensation decreed is ^ ?10,61.899,50per acre." PRADEEP NAMDRAJOG, DECEMBER

20.. 2011 rk

n $-8 % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 584/2008 LAKH! RAM & ORS. ..... Appellants Through: Mr.S.K.Rout, Ms.Sukhda Dhamija and Ms.Dimple Dhannija, Advocates. Versus UOI & ORS. Through: Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate for R-1. Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICEPRADEEP NANDRAJOG