Balwant Singh v. Union of India & Ors

ORDER

17.11.2011 C.M.No.20260/2011 (Condonation of delay)

¶1Thereis delayof 36 days inre-filingtheaccompanyingappeal.

¶2Notice.

¶3Mr.SanjayKumarPathak,Advocateacceptsnoticeon behalfof respondent.

¶4For the reasons statedin the application,the same is allowed andthe delayin filingtheaccompanyingappealis condoned.

¶5CM stands disposed of LA.APP. 692/2011

¶1Counsel for the appellant states that appellant's land was acquired vide Notification of 6.2.2003 under Section 4 of Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 and the compensationgranted,bythis Courtin respect of this very Village and the Notificationin question, in LA.App.No.489/2008titled as Chiranji Lai UOI, decided on

2.6.2011 is of Rs.4,03,425/-per bigha and the appellant'scase is at LA.App.No.692/2011 Page1of2 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. par with the case of ChiranjiLai (supra). Copy of the order of this Court in Chiranji Lai (Supra) is placed on record as AnnexureA-2 alongwith the appeal.

¶2Notice.

¶3Mr.SanjayKuamrPathak,Advocateacceptsnoticeonbehalfof respondentand statesthat the fate of this appeal would be governed by the decisionin ChiranjiLai (supra)andthe operativeportionofthe said decisionin paragraphno.18 to 20, reads as under:- "18. Thus, with respect to the price ^,35,815/-per bigha as of 11.6.1996and giving 10% increaseper annum thefair marketvalueofthe landofthe appellants works out to ^4,03,425/-per bigha and thus we dispose of the appeals enhancingthe compensationpayable to the appellants to ^4,03,425/-per bigha. We further decree that the appellants would be entitled to solatium and interest as per statute and as clarified in the decisionreportedas 93 (2001)DLT569Sunderv^. UOI.

¶19Proportionate costs are also awarded.

¶20Allpendingapplicationsstanddisposedof in terms oftheprayersmade thereinandcross objections,ifany, filed by UnionofIndia are dismissed."

¶4Accordingly this appeal is allowed and the compensation payable to the appellant is enhanced to Rs.4,03,425/-per bigha alongwith statutory solatium, interest, etc. and the proportionate costs.

¶5The appealstandsdisposedof in the aforesaidterms. NOVEMBER 17, 2011 pkb LA.App.No. 692/2011 lgaM) JUDGE je $-18-23 & 75 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + LA.APP.489/2008 Date of Decision: Z" lune, 2011 CHIRANJl LAL Appellant Through: Mr.Shyam Sunder, Advocate. UOI & ANR. Through: U\.APP.1089/2008 SH.NET RAM Through: UOI Si ANR. Through: LA.APP.1090/2008 SH.HANS RAJ & ORS. Through: versus Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar and Mr.Ashish Tanwar, Advocates for UOI. Ms.lndrani Ghosh & Ms.Shobhna Takiar, Advocates for DDA. Appellant Mr.S.Chaturvedi and Mr.R.S.Dalai, Advocates. versus Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar and Mr.Ashish Tanwar, Advocates for UOI. Ms.lndrani Ghosh & Ms.Shobhna Takiar, Advocates for DDA. Appellant Mr.S.Chaturvedi and Mr.R.S.Dalai, Advocates. UOI & ANR. versus Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar and Mr.Ashish Tanwar, Advocates for UOI. Ms.lndrani Ghosh & Ms.Shobhna Takiar, Advocates for DDA. •: o. :r-, :r-U\.APP.1091/2008 RAJ SINGH & ORS. Through: UOI & ANR. Through: LA.APP.1162/2008 • VINOD MITTAL Through: UOI & ANR. Through: LA.APP.1163/2008 SEEMA DEVI BANSAI Through: UOI & ANR. Through: LA.APP.212/2011 HARI DUTT& ORS. Through: Appellants Mr.S.Chaturvedl and Mr.R.S.Dalai, Advocates. versus Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar and Mr.Ashish Tanwar, Advocates for UOI. Ms.lndrani Ghosh & Ms.Shobhna Takiar, Advocates for DDA. Appellant Mr.S.Chaturvedl and Mr.R.S.Dalai, Advocates. versus Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar and Mr.Ashish Tanwar, Advocates for UOI. Ms.lndrani Ghosh & Ms.Shobhna Takiar, Advocates for DDA. Appellant . Mr.S.Chaturvedi and Mr.R.S.Dalai, Advocates. versus Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar and Mr.Ashish Tanwar, Advocates for UOI. Ms.lndraniGhosh & Ms.ShobhnaTakiar, Advocates for DDA. Appellants Mr.S.Chaturvedi and Mr.R.S.Dalai, Advocates. UOI & ANR. o versus Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar and Mr.Ashish Tanwar, Advocates for UOI. Ms.lndrani Ghosh & Ms.Shobhna Takiar, Advocates for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

¶1Whetherthe Reportersoflocal papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶2To be referred to Reporter or not?

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

¶1Vide impugneddecisionsthe ReferenceCourt has held that the appellants are not entitled to any enhancement of the compensation assessed by the Land AcquisitionCollector.

¶2The appeals relate to lands in village Ghewra, which were the subject matter ofacquisitionpursuantto a notificationdated

6.2.2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894.

¶3In the decisiondated 19.12.2008,decidinga batch of Land Acquisition Appeals, lead matter being LA.APP.No.193/2006 PratapSingh (ThruLRs) vs. UOI&Ors.. pertainingto lands in the revenueestateof villageTikri Kalan and villageGhewra; holding that the 2 lands were of equivalentnature, and Inote that the 2 lands are situated on the either side of a railway line, the DivisionBench assessedthe marketvalue of the land in village o Tikri Kalan, as of 16.11.1995 @^2,15,160/- per bigha for Block-A land and pertaining to a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated

11.6.1996, had determined the compensation for Block-A land at ?2,35,815/- per bigha.

¶4Thereafter, with reference to village Tikri Kalan, pertaining to a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 on

17.12.2002, the Division Bench determined the compensation at ^4,02,850/- per bigha on the following reasoning:- "Since we have revised the market value in respect of the aforesaid Award at ?2,35,815/- for Block-A and ^1,90,156/- for Block-B, further enhancement has to be given on these rates for the period from

17.11.1995 to

17.12.2002. However, at the same time, we are of the view that in these cases enhancement @12% p.a. should not be given because of the reason that in some of these areas the market value of the land had even gone down. Therefore, taking holistic view of the matter and balancing the upward and downward trends, we are of the opinion that interest of justice would be subserved if enhancement is granted @10% p.a."

¶5It be noted that in the instant cases, I am concerned with a notification dated

6.2.2003 which is days after the notification dated

17.12.2002, which was discussed by the Division Bench in para of its decision, relevant extract whereof is reproduced herein above.

¶6A perusal of the decision of the Division Bench would reveal that in para 42, pertaining to the notification dated

16.11.1995 it had determined the rate ?2,15,160/- per bigha and applied 12% enhancement per annum, in para 45, with i • r/ ,••"1 reference to the date 16.11.1995 and the figure of ^2,15,160/- stood enhanced to ?2,35,815/- pertaining to a notification dated

11.6.1996.

¶7It is thus apparent that in the relevant extract of para 49, hereinabove extracted, there is an obvious typographic error. If in the second line extracted herein above, the figure has to be ^2,35,815/-, then the date'in the 4^'' line has to be 11.6.1996 and not 17.11.1995. Vice versa, if the date in the 4'^ line has to be taken as 17.11.1995, the sum in second line has to be taken at ^2,15,160/-.

¶8The error by the Division Bench has resulted, it is apparent, in a higher sum being worked out at ^4,02,850/- per bigha and for which I am told necessary applications seeking review/correction have been filed before the Division Bench.

¶9The Division Bench would obviously do the necessary correction, however, as far as this Court is concerned, it is the reasoning which is relevant and not computation thereof.

¶10The reasoning of the Division Bench would be that as of

17.11.1995 the market value assessed would be ^2,15,160/- per bigha and the same would stand enhanced to ^2,35,815/- per bigha as of 11.6.1996.

¶11The further reasoning of the Division Bench which binds this Court would be the finding that there was initially a steeper percentage rise in the value of the land which subsequently fell. The Division Bench held that till the year 1996 the increase was 12% per annum and thereafter it was 10% per annum.

¶12If I was to apply the aforesaid logic of the Division Bench, which binds me, treating the fair compensation assessed at / i. T' ^2,35,815/- per bigha as of 11.6.1996 or conversely taking the figure to be ^2,15,160/- as of 17.11.1995, compensation as of

6.2.2003 would require to be worked out in view of the percentage increase held admissible by the Division Bench.

¶13If I assess the compensation with respect to the date

17.11.1995, I will have to take the base figure of?2,15,160/- and enhance it by 12% for one year and thereafter 10% per annum. If I take the figure of ^2,35,815/- the base date would be

11.6.1996 and thereafter the percentage increase would be 10% per annum.

¶14I prefer to adopt the latter date i.e. 11.6.1996 and hence the higher sum of ^2,35,815/- per bigha.

¶15Learned counsel for the appellants would urge that the Government of Delhi, from time to time, enhanced the minimum rate of compensation which it offered to pay upon land being acquired and the same evidences that between the year 2001 till the year 2008, the percentage increase per year was 16%.

¶16Learned counsel further submits that the reduction in the incrementalvalue of the land from 12% per annum to 10% per annum determined by the Division Bench, with respect to the notification dated

17.12.2002 has to be appreciated with reference to the sale deeds pertaining to village Tikri Kalan, and discussionof the DivisionBench shows that post 1996, in village Tikri Kalan, the percentage increase had come down vis-a-vis the previous sale deeds; and whereas in the past the increase was 12%, post 1996 it came down to 10%. Counsel seeks to urge that as regards village Ghewra there was no such evidence. >

¶17The pleas by learned counsel for the appellants are rejected for the reason the Governnnent of Delhi issues the notifications pertaining to the minimum rate it would pay and these rates apply to all agricultural lands in Delhi irrespective of the situation, potentiality etc. The appellants are not seeking the rate as offered by the Government and thus cannot say that discarding the rates, the percentage increase offered by the Government should bind the Government. As regards the second plea, we see reasoning in the Division Bench judgment as is projected by learned counsel that the Division Bench found that in village Tikri Kalan the percentage increase in land price post 1996 came down to 10% per annum and not in village Ghewra. In fact the decision would show that the Division Bench treated lands in the two villages at par.

¶18Thus, with respect to the price ?2,35,815/- per bigha as of

11.6.1996 and giving 10% increase per annum the fair market value of the land of the appellants works out to ^4,03,425/- per bigha and thus we dispose of the appeals enhancing the compensation payable to the appellants to ^4,03,425/- per bigha. We further decree that the appellants would be entitled to solatium and interest as per statute and as clarified in the decision reported as 93 (2001) DLT 569 Sunder vs. UOL

¶19Proportionate costs are also awarded. 3^ •r

¶20All pending applicationsstand disposedof in terms of the prayersmade thereinand cross objections,if any, filed by Union of India are dismissed. June 2, 2011 dk PRADEEP NANDRAJOG,J.

m $-5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 692/2011 BALWANT SINGH Through: versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS Through: CORAM: Appellant Mr.Pankaj Vivek and Mr.Karamvir Singh, Advocates Respondents Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for UOI/LAC % HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR