Union of India v. Gopal Singh & Ors

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. ii IT ht IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI O f Date of Decision: 22nd /u/v, 2011 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 UOI & ORS ... Respondents Through: Mr.SanjaY Poddar, Standing Counsel(LA), GNCT Delhi with Mr.Sachifl Nawani and Mr Siddharth Panda Advocates AND + LA.APP. 528/2009 & CM No.13387/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 827/2010 & CM 911/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP. 1070/2010 & CM No.13394/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.765/2010 & CM No.909/2011 (Cross Objections), LA.APP.15/2011 & CM No9949I2011 (Cross Objections)1 LA.APP.39/2011 LA.APP.48120 11 & LA.APP.419/20I1 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 23.06.1989 & Award No.14/1992 1993 ' Village-Kilokan) + LA.APP. 1238/2008 CM APPL. No. 3838/2011 Cross Objection) CHINTA ... Appellant Through: Mr Bhagwat Prasad Gupta Versus Respbndeflts UOl & ORS, Through: Mr.Sanjay poddar, Standing LA.App.1'0.500'2008 & connected matters J ii AV C uns& (LA) GNCT D&hi with Mr.SaChifl Nawani and Mr Siddharth Panda Advocates AND + LA.APP. 552/2009 & CM No.13390/2011 (Cross ObjectioflS) CM APPL No.528/2011 (Cross ObjectiOflS) LA.APR43"2011 LA.APP.

. (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 23.06.1989 & Award No.161992-93, Village-Nangli Rajapur) AND CMN CORP

13287/2011 INLAAPP.N0.591'2007 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? To be referred to Reporter or not? Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? JJ S g

(Oral). Allowed ; subject to just excePtiOfl 5 2008 (Delay) For the reasons stated in the application the delay in filiflg the appeal is condoned. -. - ,. ri-innd coflfleC

¶1A large chunk of land fl the revenue estate of liRa)aPt Garhi Mendu and Khizrabad village Kilokari, Nang Page2 of7 App.NO .500/2008 & connected matters -I WOO ,Will. '4;1 '1 IL I U ?re acquired pursuant to a notification dated 23.6.1989 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and the, pUrpose of the acquisition was channelization of Yamuna River. Pertaining to the said notification, vide judgment and order 4ted 7.6.2011, dealing with lands in village Kilokari, Nangli P.!ajapur and Khizrabad i had dismissed all the appeals and coss objections holding that the fair market value of the bject lands assessed at 89,600/- per big ha by the learned ference Court was correct. I had noted therein that the larned Reference Court had personally visited the site and hd prepared a report dated 22.11.2006 graphically narrating the topology of the land. A rough site plan had been prepared. I thad noted that the subject land was between the river bank of River Yamuna and the Forward Bund. I had noted that the sJbect land was in the Flood Plain area of river Yamuna and ecept for a few patches where agricultural activity could be u!ndertaken, the land was mostly grass land, bushy and shrub vlegetation. I had noted that the aquatic vegetation was poor in this stretch due to degraded water quality of river Yamuna. There being no sale deeds which could form some evidence p;ertaining to sale transactions for similar situated lands, I had opined that the same shows hardly any buyer interested in the lands. I had thus held that the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported as T/ndev&Ors. Vs. UOI.& Anr. 2000 (54) DRJ 384 where for salábi land in village Kizrabad fair market value determined per bigha as of

110.5.1976 at fl5,000/- per biha would be a good basis as,a sarting point. The reason was that in 77ndeVs case this Court s 1pecifically noted .that the land was salabi i.e. waterlogged; as IJA.App.No.500/2008 & connected matters -'1 r - were ~he Instant lands. Thereafter, noting the observati0rs of theSyPreme Court in the decision reported as 2008 (14) SCC -. -- , '- -'I-r,,rnnritiQfl ~ td-VS wherein the Supreme Court: held that there was no universal rule that land rates apprrCiate by 10% or 12% each year and that various factors hav to be considered; If wIth referenceto the past prices the ate has to be mar(et price at a 5 bseqUeflt d determined. I had spedficaltY. dealt w agricultural ith the argument that for land in village Kilokari., pertaining notification dated to a

13.1.1959 fair market valve assessed as of 13.11.1959 was .10.1984 in RFA 2,000/- per bigha as per deciSiO.dat Noi117/1974 5IAn ooriQ!__5 on basis _

whrof it was being urged that land in village Kilokari which iS th subject matter , of the present acquisition ShOUld be grnted a higher rate not only for the reason that, Kilokari was btter situate but also that KUokari was an urbanized village. Rpelliflg gQQ DYJS case to be a good guidelines I had noted that lands in vilage KilOkari with which i was ecifiCaly cncerned in the appeals which i was deciding were lying on th e other side of Ring Road and between the.riVer bank of river w - cnrward Buñd and thus these lands could not N 1amufla iu - Ie equated with the other lands of village Kilokari. The said decision would bind, me today save and

2.xcePt epefldi upon the fate of CIVI No.1328712Oii filed by the appellant of LA App.N0.59120075 which appeal was decided me in the judgment of ifle whiCh I have just referred o The apliCati0n under Section 151, 152 and 153 ereinbefo atb0 correction and modification of my CPC seeks cIarific Page4 of7 LA.APP.N0 .500/200 8 & connected matters I (00, dcision dated 6.7.2011 and as would be evidenced from its .pleadings hereinafter noted, the application actually seeks ,a • . rview. 3! . In para 2 of the application It is stated that whie • deciding LAC No.18/2005 Attar S/na/i Vs. UO/, the learned Rference Court had clearly observed that agricultural lands in village Kilokari are better situate vis-à-vis lands in village Khizrabad and thus itis sought to be urged that an error has been committed while penning the judgrnent and order dated

76.2011. Thereafter, it is pleaded that since village Kilokari was urbanized, the escalation granted by me at the rate of 715% per annum with reference to the price fixed in TindeVs • cse is ex-facie wrong. Though not pleaded in the application, during arguments,today, Sh.B.P.Gupta states that since. I was idfluenced by the observations of the Supreme Court in 4meshbha1s case (supra) wherein Supreme Court had held t11iat in rural areas appreciation would normally.be between 5% t4 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 .Rarneshbha1s case to simply bring home the pOint that wher1, for years together, no sale purchase . takes place for prticular kind of a land in a village, this would be proof of tIere being hardly any buyers•for the land. As rural areas, a,vay from cities; have les percentage increase in the lank vlue, similar would be the p.osition of disadvantaged lands ir. Urbanized villages. Though not highlighted by me, but 1 1 highlight now. Mere urbanization of an area without a furthe LA.App.No.500/2008 & connected matters . - 4 ; 4W conideratiOn of the nature of land use prescribed post urbnizatiOfl would result in wrong conclusiOn being arrived with reference to the market value of land if mere urbanization is the index factored and the land used index ignored.

¶5In my decision I had highllghted that as per Master Plar, the subject lands were to be developed as green areas havng recreational activities around the river Yamufla and harly 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 Kilokari was urbanized in the ye 1966. Instant notification is dated 23.6.1989. It is relevant that in spite of being Urbanized in the year 1966, no dejelopment took place on the subject lands for over 23 years.

¶6There is neither any error, clerical or otherwise on the aforesaid process committed by me. It was of reasoning I had held that for the subject lands they would have were comprised in the low lying, the same value whether they areas of village Kilokàri, Khizrabad or Nangli RajapUr. I would highlight that the contra argument of the Union pertaining to sinilar low lying lands in village Ghari Mendu which were also adquired for the same purpose and pursuant to the same notification was rejected. The argument was that agricultural latids of village Ghari MendU which were acquired were on the Eastern bank of river Yamufla and were locatioflallY jdvafltaged I had held that so poor was the quality of the acquired lands that they could be treated as BPL (Below Poverty Line) and it would be difficUlt to. draw a further classification of a category BBPL (Below, Below Poverty Line). LA.APP.N0.500I28 & connected mafferS (9 This was so held in a decision of even date, deciding a batch of appeals relating to village Ghari Mendu, lead matter being LA.App.NO.613/2008. Un/on oflnd/a. Vs. IhfizaQ_51flh._QE5. • '

¶7I have dealt with the issue on merits raised in the app4'1catiOfl which as is apparent from the narratives t it • hereinabove, is in sum and substance an.ppliCati0n seeking revew and I have treated the same as a review applicatiQfl and I have not quibbled on the technicalities of law that a masked as one under Section 151, 152 review petition is being and 153 CPC. Accordingly, i dismiss CM No.13287/201' in LA tl App.NO.5912007 Following my decision in Bed Rrn'S case I dismiss all' above captioned appeal and cross objections and decree tht parties shall bear their own cost. / (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) • JUDGE JULY 22, 2011 mm L LA.App.NO.5001"2008 & connected matters •

$-22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. No.948/2010 UNION OF INDIA AppeIInt Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Standing Counsel (LA) GNCT Delhi with Mr.Sachin Nawani & Mr.Siddhartha Panda, Advocates. versus GOPAL SING H & ORS. Respondents Through: Mr.Arun Birbal, Advocate for DDA 1 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG