Mukhtiare v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER %

29.08.2011 C.M. No.l6021/2011fbv appellant for condonation of delay) The present application is filed by the appellants praying inter alia for condonation of delay of 1716 days in preferring accompanying appeal. At the outset, counsel for the appellants states that in case the delay of 1716 days in preferring accompanying appeal Is condoned, the appellants shall not claim interest on the enhanced amount for the period of delay as also the costs of the appeal. Counsel for respondents, who appear on advance copy, state that they have no objection to the aforesaid suggestion made by the counsel for the appellant. LA.APP. 560/2011 Page 1 of 4. Accordingly, for reasons stated in application, particularly,in para No. 4 and 5, the present application is allowed with the condition that the appellants shall not be entitled to claim interest on the enhanced amount for the period of delay of 1719 days in preferring the appeal and the costs of the appeal. The application is disposed of. LA.App.No.560/2011 'l. By way of the present appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment 25.05.2000 passed by the Reference Court in LAC No.37/04 arising out of Award No.5/DCW-2000-01pertaining to village Mundka, pursuant to the notification dated 17.06.2005 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (in short 'the Act').

¶2Counsel for the appellant submits that present case is squarely covered by the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench (Pradeep Nandrajog, J.) passed in a batch of matters, lead matter being LA.App.13/2007 entitled 'Roshan Lai Vs. UOI & Ors' decided as recently as on

15.07.2011 with regard to land situated in village Baprolla. Learned counsel particularly draws attention of this Court to the operative paras 24-26 of the aforesaid judgment, relevant portions of which are reproduced herein below:- LA.APP. 560/2011 Page 2 of 4.

¶24Since categorization of the lands has not been questioned, thus I hold that for the acquired lands in village Baprola, pertaining to notification dated

12.8.1997, fair market value of land could safely be assessed with reference to the decision in Jamna's case (supra) and by granting 10% increase in the value of the land, commencing 25.2.1997, being the notification with which I was concerned in Jamna's case (supra), instant notification 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 compensation 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 appellants would be entitled to all statutory benefits as per statute as clarified in the decision reported as 93 (2001) DLT 569 Sunder Vs. UOI 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.

¶3Counsel for the appellant further states that the land of the appellant is covered under category 'A' for the purpose of grant of compensation.

¶4It is submitted by counsel for appellant that appellant is also entitled to the relief as granted to other similarly placed appellants in the aforesaid batch of matters. LA.APP. 560/2011 Page 3 of 4.

¶5Counsels for the respondents do not deny that the judgment referred to by the counsel for the appellant is in respect of the same village covered by the same award.

¶6Followingthe aforesaid decision dated 15.07.2011 in the case of Roshan Lai (suoraj, the present appeal is also disposed of on the same lines, while granting the same relief to the appellant herein as granted to the appellants in the LA.APP.13/2007. However, it is clarified |that the appellant shall not be entitled to claim interest on the enhanced compensation for the period of delay of 1716 days in filing the appeal as also the costs of the appeal, in terms of the orders passed today in CM 16021/2011 preferred by the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. MIMA KOHLI,J AUGUST 29, 2011 'anb' LA.APP. 560/2011 Page 4 of 4. i * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + IAAPP. 13/2007 Roshan Lai - Through: Mr. S.K.Rout&Mr.N.S.Dalai, Advocates Versus UOI&ORS - Respondents Throuah: Mr.SanjayPoddar,Standing Counsel

(LA), GNCT Delhi with Mr.SachinNawani and Mr Siddharth Panda Advocatesfor R-1 AND LA.APP. 14/2007, LA.APP. 15/2007 LA.APP. If2007 W_APP. r-^-^/orvno I AAPP 582/2008i LA.APPi583/2UUoj 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,VillageBaprola) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEPNANDRAJOG

¶1Whetherthe Reportersof local papersmay be allowed to see the judgment?

¶2To be referred to Reporter or not?

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

¶1Above captioned appeals pertain to acquisitionof agriculturallands comprised in the revenue estate of village Baprola. Acquisition commenced pursuant to a notification LA.App.No.13/2007 ^ p 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 deternninedfair market value of Block A lands at ?2,08,383/-per bigha and Block Blands at ?1,77,083/- perbigha.

¶3Land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Land AcquisitionAct and for reasons which are not very commendable, 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, 29.9.2006 and 30.10.2006.

¶5I 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 orders, and further with respect to same evidence, different reasoning are to be found in different orders. It has only made the journey of this Court a little longer.

¶7The Reference Court has enhanced compensation to ?2,17,374/- per bigha for Block A land and ?1,86,123.38 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 LA.App.No.13/2007 Page 2 of7 4' P 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.

¶8Thus, for purposesofthe instant decisionreference is being made to the evidenceled In LAC No.178/2004. It may be highlighted that the land owners. In different references were relying upon either or ail the above 4 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 1 bigha land sold In village Mundka 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 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 reason If the principleof contiguityis to be applied,entireDelhi would becomeone unit. 11-Differentreasons have been given by the learned ReferenceCourtnot to rely upon the agreementto 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 U4 lacs per acre.

¶12The reasoning of the learned Reference Court, cumulativelyread; with referenceto hues of the view in the various impugned orders is:- LA.App.No.13/2007 Page 3 of?

(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 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 Bland and without depressing the same for Category A land, enhanced the compensation by giving price rise @ 12% p.a. on the minimum price as notified.

¶15Learned counselfor the appellant^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 LA.App.No. 13/2007 Page 4 of? f 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 Bakarwaia 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 Bakarwaia 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 Bakarwaia and finally the land In village Mundka and these lands would abut NH-10.

¶17In other words the locatlonal advantage of lands In village Mundka would be that they abut NH-10. The locatlonal advantage of the lands in village Baprolawould 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, and I 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 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 betweenthe 'V constitutedby NH-10 and Najafgarhroad. LA.App.No.13/2007 Page 5 of?

¶19However, it may be noted that small parcels ad measuring bigha and 3 biswa, 1 bigha and 1 biswa respectively, were sold under 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 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.

¶20Thus, 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 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 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.

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

¶23Ihave already held hereinabovethat the topology of the area would entitle equivalenceof agriculturallands in LA.App.No. 13/2007 Page 6 of? \ V village Mundka with village Bakarwala as also the instant village, Baprola.

¶24Since categorization of the lands has not been questioned,thus I hold that for the acquired lands in village Baprola, pertaining to the notification dated 12.8.1997, fair market value of land could safely be assessed with 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 notification with which I was concerned in lamna'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 categoryB lands the same is no,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 compensationstands decreed in sum of ?12,52,264.30per acre and for such lands which are in category B (Block A), compensation decreed is?10,61,899.50 per acre. 's further decreed that on enhanced compensationthe appellantswould be entitledto all statutory benefitsas per statuteas clarifiedin the decision reportedas 93 (2001) DLT 569 Sunder Vs. UP! pyrppi-such appealswhich were filed belatedlyand delay was condoned;said appellants would not be entitled to interest for the period of delay. Proportionatecost is also decreedin favourofthe appellants. JULY 15, 2011/mm LA.App.No. 13/2007 (PRADEEPNANDRAJOG) JUDGE Page 7 of? II

r y * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 560/2011 MUKHTIARE Appellant Through: Mr. Deepak Khosia, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Adv. with Mr. Mohit Rao Jadhav, Adv. for R-l/UOI/LAC. Mr. Arun Birbal, Adv. for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI