Union of India v. Ravinder & Anr

ORDER

14.03.2012 For orders see LA.APP.421/2010,titled as Suresh Prasad alias Hari Kishan V5. Union ofIndia & Am. March 14, 2012 pkb JIL GAUR) JUDGE Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. • X m THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI A1 NEW DELHI / Reserved on ; Febniaiy 08, 2012 Pronounced on : March 14, 2012 LA.APP.421/2010(VH.LAGEMASOODABAD) SURl'SHPRASADalias MAR] KISITAN Appellant Through: Mr.B.D.Sharma,Mr.S.K.Roul, Ms.Sukhda Dhainija and Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates versus UNION INDIA & ANR. Through: Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Ms.K.Kiran Pathak,Mr.SuryaNath Pandey, Mr.Yeeshu Jain and N4s.Navlin Swain. Advocates for LAC/UOl . No. 421/2010 . No. 443/2010 . No. 455/2010 No. 458/2010 . No. 462/2010 . No. 465/20,10 No. 469/2010 No. 478/2010 No. 584/2010 No. 1012/2010 f.A.App LA.App LA.App 1-A.App l.A.App LA.App LA.App l.A.App l.A.App J^A.App, AND • No. 441/2010 . No. 444/201 0 . No. 456/20! 0 . No. 459/2010 No. 463/2010 No. 467/2010 No. 470/2010 No. 580/2010 No. 585/2010 No. 1013/2010 LA.App LA.App LA.App LA.App LA.App L.A.App LA.App LA.App l.A.App LA.App LA.App l.A.App LA.App LA.App l.A.App LA.App l.A.App LA.App LA.App. LA.App. No. 442/201 0 • No. 446/2010 No, 457/2010 No. 460/2010 No. 464/2010 No. 468/2010 No. 471/2010 No'. 583/2010 No.lOl 1/2010 No. 12/2012 AND APPI^ALS FILLD BY UNION OF INDIA LA.App.No. 746/2010 LA.App. No. 59/2012 LA.App.No. 747/2010 LA.App. No. 748/2010 LA.App.No. 751/2010 LA.App. No. 753/2010 i.A.Apj).No. 421/20]0&ConnecledAppealsofVillageMasoodabfid .A.App. No. 710/201 1 -A.App. No. 749/2010 -A.App. No. 754/2010 stKa'SAsiaifcaaisaaatftga; Page 1 % LA.App.No.755/2010 LA.App.No. 756/2010 LA.App.No. 858/2010 I.A.App.No. 859/2010 LA.App.No. 860/2010 T.A.App.No. 861/2010 l.A.App.No. 862/2010 LA.App.No. 863/2010 LA.App.No. 865/2010 LA.App. No. 866/2010 LA.App.No. 867/2010 LA.App. No. 868/2010 LA.App.No. 869/2010 LA.App.No. 267/201I LA.App. No. 752/2010 LA.App,No. 21/2012 LA.App. No. 56/2012 (Relating to NotificationNo. F.7/60/2001/L&B/[.A/MRl\S(S/W)/7674 ol 05.08.2003issued under Scction4ofthe I.and AcquisitionAct, 1894 &Award No. 5/2005-06ofVillageMasoodabad,Delhi) CORAM: HOJS'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER

14.03.2012

¶1For 'NajafgarhDepot, MKTS Project',610 bighas and 13 biswas oi land of Village Masoodabad was acquired vide Notillcationof 5"' August, 2003 under Section 4 ofthe Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 which was followed by Notificationof 8^'^ August, 2003 under Section6'of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 resultingin passingof Award No.5/2005-06 grantingcompensationat the rate of Rs. 15.70 lacs per acre on the basis oJ' indicative pricc fixed by the Government of NCI' of Delhi for the agricultural lands in Delhi.

¶2In the reference sought by the claimants, interest @10% per annum was granted by the ReferenceCourt for the period of two years, i.e., from the date of fixing of the minimum agriculturalprice upto the date of Notification, i.e.,. compensation amount stood enhanced to Rs.l 8,84,000 per acre for the acquired land in question.

¶3In the instantappeals, furtherenhancementof Rs.50 lacs per acre is sought by the claimants,whereas the respondentin their appeals have sought setting aside of the impugned order of the Reference Court and restorationof the Award. Since the grounds urged in these appeals is LA.App. No. 421/2010 &ConnectedAppealsofViilageMasoodabad Page 2 M common, therefore, by this common order, these appeals arc being disposed of

¶4On behalfofthe appellants/claimants,it is urged that the learned ReterenccCourt has wrongly treated acquired lands as agriculturalland and did not apprcciatcthe potentialityof the acquired land as building site and assessmentof the compensationin respectof the acquired land ought to have been made on the basis of the average auction rate of residentialand commercialplots in Dwarkaand the rates chargedby the DDA while allottingalternativeplots is a valid basis to arrive at true marketvalueofthe acquiredland in question.

¶5During the course of hearing, it was pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants/claimantsthat Village Masoodabad was uibanizcdin the year 1963 and zonal developmentplan was preparedby Delhi DevelopmentAuthorityin the year 1974 and the acquisitionofthe land mquestionwas for the proposedresidentialpurpose. Much rcliancc was placed upon Award (l-.x.PW-1/3)pertainingto Village Mangolpur Khuid and Award (ltx.PW-1/4)ol Village MohammadpurMunirka of the Land Acquisition Collector, wherein compensation was assessed while taking into considerationthe L&DO rates. It is pointed out that some parcel of acquired land abuts the main Delhi-Najafgarhmetalled road and in the adjoiningVillageNangli Sakrawati,there are industries and NajafgarhIndustrialArea is in the vicinity.

¶6Accordingto the learnedcounsel for the appellants/claimants,the best piece ofevidence,i.e. allotmentofland in Village Masoodabadand NajaJ'garhby DDA to Delhi Jal Board at the rale of Rs.2() lacs per acre m the year 1993 has been illegally discarded by the Reference Court. Reliance is placed upon the decisions reported in Tindey & Ors. Vs. UnionofIndia&Anr, 2000(54)DR.I(DB) 384; P.N.Singhvs. Unionof l-A.App.No. 421/2010&ConnectedAppealsofVillageMasoodabad Page 3 /• India, 1997 J AD (Del) 83; Hari Chand v.v. Union ofIndia, 91 (2001) [)[;r 602; DelhiDevelopmentAuthorityw. LandAcquisitionCollector Ors., 130(2006)D'F 1(DB);AtmaSingh (died) through LRs vs. State OfHaryana & Anr., AIR 2008 SC 709; Mahabir Prasad Santuka and Ors. Vs Collector, Cuttack and Ors., (19^) I SCC 587; Thakur Kuldeep Singh (D) Thr. L.R. &Ors vi. Union ofIndia &Ors., AIR 2010 SC 1272; Om Prakash (D) by LRs & Ors. vs. Union ofIndia & Anr., 2004 VIII AD (SC) 37; Om Prakash vs. StateofHaryana&Ors, 201 ] IV AD (SC) 382; Sagunthala(dead) through LRs vs. Special Tehsildar (L.A.) and ors., AIR 2010 SC 984; Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkarvs. State of Maharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238, lo assert that the compensationclaimedin these appealsis just and reasonable.

¶7On behalfof the respondents,it was asserted by learned Senior Counsel for the respondentsthat adoptionofthe auctionrates ofDDA or L&DO rates in respect of agriculturalland stands negated by the Apex Court in decision in La! Chand vs. Union ofIndiaandAnr., (2009) 15 SCC 769. It was also urged by learned counsel For the respondentsthat despite Village Masoodabad being declared to be urbanized, the acquiredland in questioncontinuedto be used as agriculturalland and therefore, instances of Village Mangolpur Khurd and Village MotiammadpurMunirkaare ofno avail and the instanceofallotmentof land by DDA in fevour of Delhi Jal Board cannot be treated to be representativeprice of the lands in the vicinityas the evidenceis laekino - to regardingsaid instances to be comparable Cor determiningtlic inarl<et value ofthe land in question.Reliancewas placed upon decisionof the Apex Court in Satpa!&On. Vs. UnionofIndia.(1997) 11 SCC 423 lo assertthat il in ashort period there is asharp increasein price, than the ^.Hual prevalenttrend in the market,such an instancecannotbe taken as -i /3 realistic price unless and until the reasons for such sharp rise are explainedand there is no explanationto justifythe adoption of Delhi .lal Board instance to determine the market value of the acquired land in question.

¶8y\.s regards the potentiality of the acquired land in question is concerned,it is contendedby learnedSeniorcounselfor the respondents that no developmentactivitytook place in the vicinitynor any building activity had started in the adjoining areas despite Village Masoodabad being declared as urban and so the decisions relied upon by the appellants/claimants are distinguishable on facts.

¶9In the appeals preferred by the respondents, enhancement in the comper-isation amount is assailed on the ground that the annual increase to be given is dependent upon the nature of evidence led and in the instantmatters,there is no evidenceshowingincreasein the marketprice of the land in question till its acquisition.It is assertedthat doing away of classification of acquired lands in question by Reference Court is illogical and without any justification. Thus, setting aside of the impugnedjudgment and restoring of the Award of the Land Acquisition Collector is sought by the respondents.

¶10Factors and test to determinethe true market value of the acquired land "have been restated by the Apex Court in its recent decision in Radha Mudaliyar ra. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) Tamil Nadu Housing Board, (2010) 13 SCC 384, in these words:- "Comparable sales instances are the safest method for determining the market value of the acquired land and as laid down in Shaji Kuriakose v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd.,

(2001) 7 SCC 650. it should satisfy the factors, inter alia,

(1) the sale must be a genuine transaction; (2) the sale deed must have been executedat the time proximate to the date of issuance of notificationunder Section 4 of the Act; (3) LA.App.No. 421/2010&ConnectedAppealsofVillageMasoodabad Page5 iff the land coveredby the sale must he in the vicinityof the ciccjuiyedland; (4) the land covered hy the sale nwst he similarto the acquiredland; and (5) size of the plot ofthe land covered by the sale be comparable to the acquired. land. The sales instancesshouldpreferablybe closestto the • date of the notificationas then alone it would satisfy the touchstoneof the principles contemplatedunder Section 23 of the Act, as held in Kanyvar Singh v. Union of India

(1998)8 see 136. " \ \. Having heard learned counsel for the parties in these mattersand upon perusal of the impugned judgment, evidence on record and the decisions cited,.! proceed on the premise that the burden of proving inadequacy of the compensation amount is upon the appellants/claimants.Now it is to be seen as to whether the appellajits/claimantshave been successfulin dischargingthis burden or not.

¶12No doubt, purpose for which the acquisition is made is an ijnportantfactor, but the question as to whether the acquired land has potential value or not, is primarily one of fact depending upon its condition,situation,user to which it is put or is reasonablycapable of being put and proximity to residential, commcrcial or industrial or institutional area. I1ie existing amenities like water, electricity, possibilityoftheir furtherextensionand the prospectsofdevelopmentin the ai'ea have to be taken into consideration.It has been so reiteratedby the Apex Court in Atma Singh (supra). It is in this context, I have scrutinizedthe evidence on record and I find that there is hardly any evidence regarding the topographyof the area adjoining the acquired land in questionand the evidenceled regardingthe aks shizra(Ex.PW-2/1) -ol this village does not throw any light on this vital aspect, except that the evidence led to prove this documentadversely reflects that on the easternside of VillageMasoodabad,there is Najafgarhdrain, which I.A.App.No. 421/2010&ConnectedAppealsofVillageMasoodabad instead of enhancingthe potentiality,rather diminishesit. The witness who was got examined to prove the aks shizra of Village Nangli Sakmwali(Iix.P'W-4/1)concedesthat the metalledroad betweenVillage Nangll Sab-awatiand Village Masoodabadis not reflected in the aks shizra.Evidenceofthis witness(PW-4)insteadofadvancingthe caseof the appellants/claimants regarding the potentiality, reduces the potentialityofthe acquiredland in question.

¶13There is no evidenceto establishthe comparabilityofthe acquired lands under Award(Ex.PW-1/3)pertainingto VillageMangolpurKlnird and under Award (Ex.PW-1/4)ofVillageMohammadpurMunirkawith the acquiredland in question.Rather, as per evidenceof the concerned official (TW-10), Award (Ex.PW-IO/1)pertained to West Patel Nagar for Metro Project. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, ReferenceCourthas rightlyexcludedthe aforesaidAwards (bx.PW-1/3 & Ex.PW-1/4)to determinethe fair marketvalueofthe acquiredland in question. Selfservingdepositionof claimantsregardingpotentialityof acquiredlands in question,in the absenceof corroborativeevidence,is not enough to return positivefinding on this crucial aspect, paiticulaily in view of the fact that evidenceregardingindustriesbeing there in the vicinityof acquiredlands is lacking.

¶14^So far as the DelhiJal Boardinstance(Ex.PW-4/1)is concerned, 1 find that even its comparabilitywith acquired land in question is not establishedas the witness (PW-5) who has deposed in respect of this transactionhas concededthat he is not able to tell the distancefrom the said land to the land in question.Therefore,ReferenceCourt has rightly not reliedupon the DelhiJal Boardinstance(Ex.PW-4/1).

¶15It has come in evidenceofthe appellants/claimantsthat theie is no Governmenthospitalor collegein VillageMasoodabad.and the evidence LA.App.No. 421/2010&ConnectedAppealsofVillageMasoodabad Page 7 f t regardingthe acquired land in question being surroundedby developed colonies is lacking. In the face of such deficientevidence,there is no scope for enhancementof compensationin the instant appeals. Such a conclusion is being drawn while keeping in view the ratio of the piecedents cited. Having failed to establish the potentiality of the acquired land in question, the appellants/claimantshave to remain content with the assessment of compensation on the basis of the mdicativeprice of the agriculturalland by Governmentof NCT of Delhi as undisputedly, the acquired land in question were being used for agriculturalpurposeat the time ofits acquisition.

¶16Upon scrutiny of the evidence on record, it becomes quite apparentthat despite Village Mmoodabadbeing declared as urban, the acquu-edland in questionwere being used for agriculturalpurposeby the appellants/claimantsand so, adoption of indicativeprice of agricultural lands by Government of NCT of Delhi appears to be a reasonable criteria for determining the market value of the acquired land in question, as on the date of Notificationunder Section 4 of the Land AcqmsitionAct, 1894. Such aview is beingtaken as the acquiredland in question was admittedlyundevelopedand therefore, adoption of DDA auctionrates or L&DO rates is not permissiblein view of the dictum of the Apex Court in Lai Chand (supra), which has been quoted with approval by the Apex Court in its latest decision in ThakurKuldeep Singh (supra).

¶17Regarding increase of 10% per annum over and above the minimum indicativeprice fixed by Governmentof NCT of Delhi, the same cannot be assailed by the respondentas the ReferenceCourt has done so while relying upon decision of the Apex Court in Union of India vs. Harpat, (2009) 14 SCC 375. This Court finds that the '^A.App.No. 421/2010&ConnectedAppealsofVillageMasoodabad Page 8 ReferenceCourt was justifiedin grantingthe aforesaidincreaseof 10% per annum whilerelyingupon the decisionin Harpat(supra).

¶18In the light of the fore-goingnarration,I find no infirmityin the impugned judgment in which fair compensationhas been assessed in respectof the acquiredland in question.ReferenceCourt has rightlynot classified the acquired land in question into 'A' category and 'B' cdtegoiy, as I.and AcquisitionCollector in the Award in question has unequivocally stated that no classification of the acquired land is requiredto be done as the acquiredland is leveled.

¶19Consequentially,the appealsofthe appellants/claimantsas well as appealsof Union of Indiaare dismissed,while leavingthe partiesto bear their o^,vn costs. Registryis directed to remit the compensationamount, if any, depositedby eitherside with the RegistrarGeneralofthis Court, to the concerned Reference Court. 'V"- ^"'-TS'UNILGAUR) lUDCE March 14, 2012 pkb l-A.App.No. 421/2010&ConnectedAppealsofVillageMasoodabad g

+ % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 858/2010 UNION OF INDIA Through: versus RAVINDER & ANR Through: Reserved on : February 08, 2012 Pronounced on : March 14, 2012 Appellant Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Ms.K.Kiran Pathak, Mr.Surya Nath Pandey, Mr.Yeeshu Jain and Ms.Navlin Swain, Advocates for LAC/UOI Respondent Mr.B.D.Sharma, Mr.S.K.Rout, Ms.Sukhda Dhamija and Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates (Relating to NotificationNo. F.7/60/2001/L&B/LA/MRTS(S/W)/7674 of 05.08.2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 5/2005-06 of Village Masoodabad, Delhi) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR