UOI v. Pradeep Kumar & Anr

ORDER %

22.07.2011 For orders, see LA.App.No.500/2008.

PRADEEP NAN DRAJOG, J. JULY 22, 2011 dk 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. H * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI - I Date of Decision 22nd Mv 2011 Vil LA.APP. 500/2008 & CM APPL.905/2011 Cross Objection) BHARAT SINGH & OTHERS .. Appellant • through: Mr Bhagwat Prasad Gupta Mr.Inder Singh, Advocate for appellant Uma Dhowan • Versus Ar i UOI & ORS . .. Respondents Through: Mr.SánJaY Poddar, Standing Counsel (LA), GNCT Delhi with Mr.Sachin Nawani and Mr Siddharth Panda Advocates AND '1 + LA.APP. 528/2009 & CM No.13387/2011 (Cross Objections), Objections), LAAPP. LA.APP. 827/2010 & CM 911/2011 (Cross CM No.13394/2011 (Cross Objections), 1070/2010 & LA.APP.7651201° & CM No.909/2O11 (Cross Objections), Objections), LA.APP.15/2011 & CM No.9949/2011 (Cross LA.APP.48/2Oli & LA.APP.41912O11 (Relating LA.APP.391201t 4 dated 23.06.1989 & Award NO.14/1992-I 993, to Notification u/s vilIageKilokari) + LA APP 1238/2008 • CM APPL. No. 3838/2011 Cross Objection) Appellant CHINTA Versus I Respondents i1 UOl & ORS ... • Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Standing LA.App.NO.500/2008 & connected matters - k Of At • C unsel (LA) GNCT Delhi with Mr.Sachifl Nawafli and Mr Siddharth Panda Advocates AND + LA.APP. 552/2009 & CM No.13390/2011 (Cross Objections)1 , . 8/2011 (Cross LA.AP .556/2009 Objections), 948I201 LA.APP.95O1 010 A.APP.431201 1, LA.APP. 44/20111. (Relatng to Notification u/s 4 dated 23.06.1989 & Award i No.1 Naflgli RajapUr) 6(1992-93' Village AND CM N'10-1 3287/201. 1 IN LAAPP.N0. 59'.2007 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed :o see the judgment? To be referred to Reporter or not7 ld be reported in the Digest? Whether the judgment shou klAMflRAIOG I. (Oral)

Allowed, subject to just excepi0flS. j2l7l2Q.ilifliA.508 (Delay) For the reasoflS stated in the appliCai0fl the delay in filig the appeal is condoned. I LL

¶1A large hUflk of land in the revenue estate of i MendU and Khizrabad viliage Kilokari, angli RajaPUr, Garh No.500/2008 & connected matters "41 I SEE a ti '4 - I '.1 were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 23.6.1989 is1sued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and the • pirpose of the acquisition was channelization of Yamuna River. Prtaining to the said notification, vidè judgment and order dted 7.6.2011, dealing with lands in village Kilokari, Nangli • Rjapur and Khizrabad I had dismissed all the appeals and coss objections holding that thefair market value of the subject lands assessed at 89,600/- per bigha by the learned Reference Court was correct. I had noted therein that the learned Reference Court had personally visited the site and hd prepared a report dated 22.11.2006 graphically narrating tEie topolágy of the land. A rough site plan had been prepared. I had noted that the subject land was between the riverbank of River Yarnuna and the Forward Bund. I had noted that the subject land was in the Flood Plain area of river Yamuna and ecept forà few patches where agricultural activity could be ulndertaken, the land was mostly grass land, bushy and shrub vgetation. I had noted that the aquatic vegetation was poor ir this stretch due to degraded water quality of river Yamuna. There being no sale deeds which could form some evidence pertaining to sale transactions for simi!ar situated lands, I had opin'ed that the sameshows hardly any buyer interested in the lands. I had thus held that thedecision of a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported as Tindev& Ors. Vs. UOI& Anr. 2000 (54) DRJ 384 where for salabi land in village lhizrabad fair market value determined per bigha as of

110.5.1976 at fl5,000/- per bigha would be a good basis as a 1' starting point. The reason was that in TindeVs case this Court specifically noted that the land was salabi i.e. waterlogged; as App.No.500/2008 & connected matters Of II Of were he instant laflds. Thereafter, noting the obseati0flS of ed as 2008 (14) 5CC the 5preme Court in the decision repo ra wherein the SuPre.me 'CoUrt held that ther Was no universal rule that land rates j[ apprCiate by 10% or 12% each year and that variou,S factors i ha'tb be conideré IfIth reference to the past prices the t be de mar(et price at a 5eqUent dat has o termined. I • had specificallY dealt with the argument that for agricultural land in village Kilokari, pertaining to a notification dated

13.11.1959 fair market value assessed as of 13.11.1959 was 2,000/ per bigha as per deiSiOn dated 10.10.1984 in RFA No117I1974 Q2 nOOELPIV5._ on basis whereof it was eiflgUrg that Land fl village Kilokari which IS the subject matter of the present acquiSiti0hl shOUld be gher rate not only for the reason that Kilokari was granted a hi was an urb btterSitUate but also that Kilokari anized village. Repelling jgQQLiDL'S case to be a good guideline. I had / s pecifically noted that lands in village Kilokari with which i was cncerfled in the appeals which: I was ecidiflg were lying on te other side of Ring Road and between the river bang of river YarnUfla and the Forward Bufld and thus these lands could not be equated with the other lands of village Kilokari.

¶2The said decision would bind me today save and except d epending upofl the fate of CM wo.1327/201' file by heaPPet of LA App.N0.59120071 which appe& was dedded • by me in the judgment of. mine which I have just referred to hereinbef0 The apIicatb0n under Section 151, 152 and 153 CPC seeks clarificati0n, correction and modification of my /LA.App0.500I20O8'& connected maerS • CT V /1 _~ decision dated 6.7.2011 and as would be evidenced from its pleadiflgs hereinafter noted, the application actually seeks a review. . .

¶3In para 2 of the application it is stated that while • deciding LAC No.18/2005 Attar S/ngh Vs. UO/, the learned • Refer,ence Court had clearly observed that agricultural lands in yillage Kilokari are better situate vis-à-vis lands in village Kh.izrabad and thus it is sought to be urged that an error has been committed while penning the judgment and order dated

76.2011. Thereafter, it is pleaded that since village Kilokari is urbanized, the escalation granted by me at the rate of 75% per annum with reference to the price fixed in T/ndeVs cse is ex-facie wrong. Though not pleaded in the application, dLiring arguments today, Sh.B.P.Gupta states that since I was irfluenced by the observations of the Supreme Court in Rameshbha/s case (supra) wherein Supreme Court had held ti3at.in rural areas appreciation would normàllybe between t 7% per annum which could be safely adopted and suitably increased if there was some evidence to prove otherwise, the sme principle could not apply to an urban village. -' 41 I note that I had referred to the decision in Rameshbhats case to simply bring home the point that where, for years together, no sale purchase. takes place for: a prticular kind of a land in a village,, this would be proof of tiliere being hardly any buyers for the land. As rural areas, aivayfrom cities, have less percentage increase in the land vlue, similar would be the position of disadvantaged lands in urbanized villages. Though, not highlighted by me, but I hghlight now. Mere urbanization of an area without a further L.App.No.500/2008 & connected matters.: Page 5 of ' 0, -

(9) .Jderatiofl of the nature of land use prescribed post ' urbnizatiOfl would result in wrong conclUSion being arrived • withLrefereflCe to the market value of land if mere urbanization is the index factored and the land used index ignored. 5 iIn my decision I had highlighted that as per Master Plan, the subject lands were to be developed as green areas having recreational actMtieS around the river Yamuna and 'harIly any land to be used for a residential or a commercial 'puroSe. I had highlighted that the appellant, Sh.Bed Ram, . had admitted that there was just no development on the lands in question. I note that village Kilokariwas urbanized in the year 1966. Instant notification is dated 23.6.1989. It is relevant that in spite of being urbanized Ifl the year 1966, no d&IeloPment took place on the subject lands for over 23 years.

¶6' There is . neither any error, clerical or otherwise conmitted by me. it was on the aforesaid process of reasoning I had held that for the subject lands they would have the same yalue whether they were comprised in the lOw lying ara5 of village Kilokari, Khizrabad or Nangli Rajapur. I would hihlight that the contra argument of the Union pertaining to siiIar low 'lying lands in village Ghari Mendu which were also acEquired: for the same purpose and pursuant .o the same ntificatiOn was rejected. The argument was that agricultural lands of village Ghari Mendu which were acquired were on the - Eastern bank of river Yamufla and were cationalIy jsadvafltaged I had held that so poor was the quality of the, aquired lands "that they could be treated as BPL (Below pverty Line) and it 'would be diffiCUlt to draw a further dassificatloni of a categorY BBPL (Below, Below Poverty Line) IAppNo.50OI2O08 & conecte matters A. , -'r (-nnc - CI), This was so held in a decision of even date, deciding a batch of aals relating to village Ghari Mendu, lead matter being LA.App.NO.613/2008 Un/eQ bf India Vs. Khazan S/nail & 0r5.

¶7I have dealt with the issue on'meritS raised in the aijli'ation1 which as is apparent from the narratives hereinabOve, is in sum and substance an application seeking revew and I have treated the same as a review application and' I have not quibbled on the technicalities of law that a review petition is being masked as one under Section 151, 152 and 153 CPC. a

¶8Accordingly, I dismiss CM No.13287/201 1 in LA App.NO.59/200 7 9 Following my dectson in Bed Ram's case I dismiss all above captioned appeal and cross objections and decree tht paies sh&l bear their own ost. LA.App.N0.500'2008 & connected matters Page7 of7 tlli

H $-23 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. No.950/2010 UOI Appellant Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Standing Counsel (LA) GNCT Delhi with Mr.Sachin, Nawani & Mr.Siddhartha Panda,' Advocates. versus PRADEEP KU MAR & ANR. Respondents • Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG