Ram Kumar v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER

23.12.2011 O For orders see LA.APP No. 608 of 2009. GAUR) JUDGE December 23, 2011 rs LA.App No.608/2009 & Connected matters Page 2 f THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT % Reservedon: 8'^^ November,2011 Pronouncedon: 23''''December,2011 + , LA.AFP No.608/2009 SHRII^MESH KUMAR Appellant Through: Mr. Deepak Kiiosla & Mr. V.P. Rana, Advocates. versus UNIONOF INDIA &ORS. - Respondents Through; Mr. Sanjay Podar, Senior Advocate v/i.th Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Ms. K.Kan-ioudi Kiran, Mr. Mohitrao Jadhav & Ms. Navlin-^ Swam, Advocates. AND + 1,AAPP.415/2011-IA.APP 608/2009,LA.APP129/201(LJ^^AP,P nnnnin TAAPP 176/2010 & CM No. 12873/2011, LA,APP 256/20J0AiMNoa29MMlL(sa^^^ •rT~7T;y.oco/or)in.j A APP 259 /2010. lA.APP 27 4n/2010. LA.APP_4i4ZmOU.AAPP_41^^ (ci:oss_ol2jection^^ . AApn ^/i^/onin TAAPP 548/2010, LA,APP_jM^.lil^-^^-^|-^ ]n"I AAPP^55/2010. LA.APP_J5^2^ TAA-np i^5^/ooin T.A APP 559/2010, LA.APP 5^ii^j_2i APP 'i69/2010.LA.APPJ70/20Ji_LAAPPJTi^^ 7^^riW7r~?TW^?W2010.LA.APPjm010J.AAPL17j.401g> TAAPP 576/2010 LA.APP 77""ni1, LA.APP 771/2010, L^AIZ 777/7010.1.AAPP '773/2010.JAAPPJZmm^AAPQI^^ LA.App No.608/2009&Connectedmatters 'i;®' LA.APP 805/2010, LA.APP 822/2010, LA.APP 824/2010 & CM No. 10333/2011 (cross-objection'), LA.APP 864/2010, LA.APP 901/2010, LA.APP 902/2010, LA.APP 962/2010,.LA.APP 1014/2010, LA!aPP 1015/2010, LA.APP 1016/2010, LA.APP 1027/2010, LA.APP , 1032/2010, LA.APP 1035/2010, LA.APP 1037/2010, LA.APP 1038/2010 & CM No.12952/2011 fcross-obiections), LA.APP 1039/2010 (CM No.12875/2011 & CM No.12876/20.11 (cross o1^e£jiQns:)^A.^' 154/2011, LA.APP 158/2011, LA.APP 274/2011,'(LAAPP368/20lp LA.APP 379/2011, LA.APP 384/2011 & LA.APP 41 l/20Tl (Relating to NotificationNo. F.No.ll(36)/94-L&B/LA/5722dated 5^'^ April, 1995 issued under Section 4 of the.Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 19/97-98, Village-Shahpur Garlii, Delhi) liON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

23.12.2011 ]. The above captioned appeals arise out of Award No. 19/97-98 of the concerned Land Acquisition Collector pertaining to the agricultural land in the revenue estate of Village-Shahpur Garhi, Delhi, which v/as .acquired by the respondentvide Notificationof 5"^ April, 1995 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The market price of the acquired land in question-was determined by the Land Acquisition Collector@^8,01,600/--peracre or(^ "^1,67,000/-per bigha.

¶2In the Referencesought under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the claimants/ land owners i.e.. the appellants, the ReferenceCourt has enliancedthe compensationto ^8,16,720/-per acre. Notsatisfiedwith the aforesaidenhancementoff'l5,120/- per acre for the acquired land, appellantshave.comeup in these appeals to seek much higher compensationi.e. enhanced compensation@ ^100/- per square yard.

¶3Foi; development of Freight Complex in Narela Project, vide Notificationof 5April, 1995, under Section4 of the Land Acquisition LA.AppNo.608/2009&Connectedmatters Page 2 f:^ Ft-te!: •=r ; Act', alargearea ofagriculturallandmeasuring733 bighasand 10 biswas ol Village-Shahpur Garhi, Delhi was acquiredby the respondents.The tactual details disclosing as to how in-pursuance to the afofesaid Notification,AwardNo. 19/97-98came to be passedand the substanceof the evidenceled beforethe ReferenceCourtstandsnotedin the impugned judgmentand isnot requiredto be recapitulated.

¶4Before the ReferenceCourt, assessmentof the marketvalue of the acquiredland in questionwas soughton the basis ofDDA predetermined rate of the year 1992-93pertainingto Narela ResidentialScheme and on the strengthofDSIDC approvedlandrate for allotmentofplots in Narela IndustrialComplex, which stands negated in the impugnedorder while lelying upon decision of the Aj)ex Court in Union of India Kv, Ram Phool (2003) 10 see 167. On the aspect ofpotentialityofthe'acquired land in question being near the developed land, Reference Court has extensivelyreUed upon DivisionBench decisionofthis Court in Gajraj Singh Vs. Union of India 2006 VI AD (Delhi) 13 in maintaining enhancement@11.5% from the effectivedate of governmentpolicy of fixing minimum price of agriculturallands in Delhi, till Notification under Section4 ofthe Land AcquisitionAct was issued.Notingthat the boundary of Village-Shahpur Garhi touches the boundary of Village-HolambiKalan, ReferenceCourtin the impugnedjudgmenthas assessed the compensationin the instant case on the basis of the compensation, assessedby this Courtin GajrajSingh (Supra)relatingto Notificationof• 15"' November, 1996,- under Section4 of Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, pertaining to Village

¶5In theseappeals,at the final hearing,the counselspresenton behalf ofthe appellantsas well as seniorcounselfor the respondentswere heard and with their assistance,the impugnedjudgment and the record was LA.App No. 608/2009 & Connected matters Page 3 i; perused. Since tlie submissions advanced by both the sides in these appealswere common,therefore,with the consentoflearnedcounsellor the parties,these appeals and cross-objectionsare being decidedby this common order.

¶6The grounds of challenge to the Award of Land Acquisition Collector before the Reference Court are being noticed herein, for the -reason that the same very grounds have been urged in these appeals on behalf of the appellants. These are:- 'i) That LAC has given very low rate of market value though the land of the petitioner has got potential value as the land of the petitioner is surrounded by the biggest colony of Asia namely Rohini and the land was acquired for the commercial activities;

ii) • diat LAC has not taken into considerationthat land has been acquired for commercial activities such as for setting of freight complex, therefore, market value of the land should be fixed at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per sq.meter.

iii) that his land is situated quite close to the , residential area of Narela and DSIDC Complex due to which his land has more potential value;

iv) that land of the petitioneris betweentwo roads including a national highway i.e. Government Karnal Road, and Delhi Narela Road, therefore, it has gretit potentialityfor residentialand commercialpurposes; that palatial farm house has been constructed in the same revenue estate in which land of the petitioner has been situated;

v) that land ofthe petitioneris fiilly developedand has all the modern facilities/ necessities i.e. telephone, electric, connection, water supply, public schools and SSN College and most frequent service of DTC buses and other private transport.'

¶7In substance, aforesaid grounds are the submissions advanced on behalfofthe appellantsbeforethis Courtto challengethe impugnedorder of the Reference Court. Undisputedly,the land use of the acquiredland in LA.App No.608/2009&Connectedmatters Page 4 ;t;,. Lf' '\i. ' U question was agriculturalat the time of issuance of Notificationunder Section4 of Land AcquisitionAct in question.The main groundto seek enhancementof compensationput forth on behalfof the appellantsis the potentialvalue of the land in question.Thoughthe stand of the appellants herein before the Reference Court was-that the land in question is strategically located from the commercial and industrial point of view, as it is just two kilometres away from Narela Green Mandi and three kilometres away from DSIDC Industrial Complex and that it has a great market value and potentiality, as it has been acquired for the development of Rohini Residential Scheme.

¶8Appellants claim that acquired land is in close proximity of Industrial Area developed by DSIDC and residential colony developed by DDA, and they rely upon Letter of Allotment (EX. PW-l/A) of a plot in Narela Industrial Complex @ ^650/- per square meter in the year 1990 by DSIDC. It is also claimed by the appellants that allotment of alternate plot under the Narela ResidentialScheme by PDA in the year 1992-93, was available@ ?650/- per square meter as per demand cum allotment letter (EX. PW2/1). Thus, seeking parity with aforesaid rates ot developed lands, enhancement in•compensation is sought by the apppllaiits.

¶9On the factual aspect, it stands noted in the impugned judgment that the land of the villages adjoiningthe village in question,including village-Holambi Kalan, has been acquired for the development of industrial area and Narela residential area in Narela. Conceding that the acquiredland is in proximityofthe industrialarea developedby DSIDC, learnedseniorcounselfor the respondenthas clarifiedthatthe purposeof acquisitionofthe land in questionis solelyfor the developmentoffreight complex in Narela. However, it was disputed that the acquired land in LA.AppNo.608/2009&Connectedmatters , I'age5 ^ • question is surrounded by any developed .cplony and thus, it was contended that the appellants cannot claim enhancement of the I compensation by relying upon the rate of land in Narela Industrial Complexor underthe NarelaResidentialSchemefloatedbyDDA. In this regard reliancewas placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in Lai Chand Vs. Union of India & Anr. (2009) 15 SCC 769. Reliance was also placed upon a decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in LA.APP 266/2008Jai Singh Union of India & Anr. , rendered on August, 2011, wherein in relation to ,this village, pertainingto an acquisition of land vide Notification of 16"' May, 2002, amount of compensationwas determined at ^18,65,500/-per acre while relying upon a DivisionBench decisionof this Courtin Gajraj Singh Vs. Union ofIndia 2006 IV AD (Delhi) 13.

¶10Even in the impugnedjudgment,in the absence of sale instances, Reference Court•has relied upon Gajraj Singh (Supra), wherein pertaining to acquisitionof the land of the adjoining village-Holambi Kalan, in relation to Notification of 15"' November, 1996, the compensationdetermined was @ ?9,76,121/- per acre for A Category land and @^9,51,121/- per acre for B Category land. '11. Reference Court has rightly concluded that grounds of challenge laid to the Award, as noted in paragraphNo.6 herein above, against,the Award in question,remainsunsubstantiatedby the appellants.

¶12- While relying upon two decisions of the Apex Court in Bhim Singh Vs. State of Haryana

(2003) 10 SCC 529 & Union of India Vs. 'Ram Phool (2003) 10 SCC 167, claim of the appellants to apply DDA and DSIDC rates to the land in question stands repelled by holding that no willing purchaser would buy agricultural land in question at the rate on which government is allotting developed land. LA.App No.608/2009&Connectedmatters Page 6 r'"" ^ |i® 5-f ' •> '•.:y ••

¶13During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellants . were not able to show that the aforesaid decisions are inapplicable nor r' any decision to the contrary was cited, hifact, Apex Court in its recent decision in Lai Chand Fs. Union of India

(2G09) 15 SCC 769 has reiterated in no uncertain terms that the rates for allotment of developed . land by the DDA cannot be the basis for calculation of the market value •of the acquired undeveloped lands. The pertinent observations .made in paragraphs No.44 & 48 in Lai Chand (Supra), which deserves to be highlighted, are as under:- '44. One of the recognized methods for determination ofmarket value is with reference to the opinion ofexperts. The estimation of market value by such statutorily constituted. Expert Committees, as expert evidence can. therefore form, the basis for determ.ini.ng the market value in land, acquisition cases, as a relevant piece of evidence. It will be however open to either party to place evidence to dislodge the presumption that mayfloM'from such guideline market value. We, however, hasten to add that the guideline market value can be a. relevant piece of evidence only if they are assessed by statutorily appointed Expert Comm.ittees, in. accordance with the prescribed, assessment procedure . (either streetMnse, or roadMHse, or areayvise, or villagewise) and finalized after inviting objections and published in the gazette. Be that as it m.ay.

¶48Even if the relied upon transaction is only tM>o to three years prior to the acquisition, the Court should, before adopting a standard escalation, satisfy itself that there yvere no adverse circumstances. For example, if the acquisition is of the year 2009, it may not be possible to determine the market value, based on the 2007 or 2008 prices, by providing an increase of 12% or 15% per year, as the newspaper reports disclose that the price of unmovable properties in m.ost areas of the country came down, by more than 40% to 50% from, the 2007 rates. Caution is therefore necessary before increasing the price with reference to the old transactions. Be t:ha.t as it may. It is clear that the award made in regard to a 1961 acquisition mhII not be of any use for determining the m.a.rket valuefor a 1981 acquisition.' LA.App No.608/2009 & Connected matters Page 7 plj:;?

¶14The aforesaiddecisionofthe Apex CourtinLaiSingh (Supra),has been followedby aCoordinateBenchofthis Courtin JaiSingh (Supra), whichalso applieson all fours inthesemattersas well.

¶15On the potentialityaspect,neitherthe map / sizra(EX. PW3/A)nor any other evidence,establishesthat apart from the DSIDC, there is any developmentin the vicinity of the acquired land. As already observed above, no sale instancesofthe nearbyarea are forthcomingto depictthe potentialityofthe area in question.Ithas to be kept in mind that the land in questionhas been acquiredfor developmentofthe freightcomplexand not for the developmentofaresidentialarea. Exceptthe oral assertionof the appellants/claimantsthat the acquiredland is for the developmentof the RohiniResidentialArea,thereis no tangibleevidenceto establishthis factual assertion.

¶16Cross objectionsfiled by the respondents,to maintain the rate of compensatiojifixed by the Land AcquisitionCollector'andnot to adopt-the ratio ofdecisionin Gajrqj(Supra), are found to be withoutsubstance for the reason that undisputedlyGajraj (Supra) has attainedfinalityand becauseit has not been shown by the respondentsas to how this decision of the DivisionBench of this Court has been wrongly applied by the ReferenceCourt to the facts of the instantcases. Rather, I find that the ReferenceCourthas correctlyrelieduponthe decisionin Gajraj(Supra), to arriveat the correctmarketvalueofthe acquiredlandin question.

¶17•Since the decision of the DivisionBench of this case in Gajraj (Supra), has attained finality a.nd it is the basis of the decision of a CoordinateBenchofthis Courtin JaiSingh (Supra),and is also the basis of the impugned order, therefore,I find no infirmityin the impugned order, adoptingthe rate of compensationas fixed by DivisionBench of this Court in Gajraj(Supra),in the matterofadjoiningvillage-Holainbi No.608/2009&Connectedmatters ' Page 8 I iJ' U' Kalan. Even the reductionofthe rate ofcompensationassessed@11.5% compoundinterestfrom the date ofNotificationof 15"' November, i9'96 in GaJraJ (Supra) to date ofNotificationof 5^' April, 1995 in the instant case IS concerned,I find the same to be in conformitywiththe decisionin Gajraj (Supra), wherein annual compounding @11.5% has been approved.

¶18As neither side could find fault in tlie impugned judgment deteimining tlie market value of the land in question@?8,16,720/-per acre, therefore,the appealsofthe claimantas well as cross-objectionsof the respondentsare dismissed,with no,orderas to costs.Accordingly,ai] the above-mentionedappeals and cross-otyectionsare disposedof with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount, if any, depositedby eitlierside with the RegistrarGeneralofthis Court, to the concerned Reference Court. JUBGE DeceHnlber23, 2011 I'S LA.AppNo.608/2009&Connectedmatters Page 9

% + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 8^^ November, 2011 Pronounced on: 23'^'^December, 2011 130/2010, LA.APP 176/2010 & CM No. 12873/2011. LA.APP 177/2010, LA.APP- 179/2010, LA.APP 184/2010. LA.APP 214/2010, LA.APP219/2010, LA.APP :229/2010, LA.APP233/2010. LA.APP 234/2010, LA.APP 235/2010. LA.APP 236/2010, LA.APP 237/2010, LA.APP 240/2010. LA.APP 241/2010. LA.APP 255/2010. LA.APP 256/2010 & CM No. 12934/201] L (cross obiections). LA.APP Z57/2010, LA. APP. 258/2010, LA. APP /2010, LA.APP ' 271/2010, LA.APP 413/2010, LA.APP 414/2010, LA.APP 415/2010, LA.APP 416/2010, LA.APP 417/2010 & CM No.3584/2011 (cross objections) , LA.APP 419/2010. LA.APP 425/2010, LA.APP 453/2010, LA.APP 546/2010, LA.APP 547/2010, LA.APP 548/2010, LA.APP 549/2010, LA.APP 550/2010, LA.APP 551/2010, LA.APP 552/2010, LA.APP 553/2010, LA.APP 554/2010, LA.APP 555/2010, LA.APP 556/2010, LA.APP 557/2010, LA.APP 558/2010, LA.APP 559/2010, LA.APP 560/2010. LA.APP 561/2010, LA.APP 562/2010, LA.APP 563/2010, LA.APP 564/2010, LA.APP 565/2010, LA.APP 567/2010, LA.APP 568/2010, LA.APP 569/2010, LA.APP 570/2010, LA.APP 571/2010, LA.APP 572/2010, LA.APP 573/2010, LA.APP 574/2010, LA.APP 575/2010, LA.APP 576/2010, LA. APP 770/2011. LA.APP 771/2010, LA.APP 772/2010, LA.APP 773/2010, LA.APP 774/2010, LA.APP 775/2010. LA.APP 805/2010, LA.APP 822/2010, LA.APP 824/2010 & CM No.10333/2011 Ccross-obiectionl LA.APP 864/2010. LA.APP 901/2010, LA.APP 902/2010. LA.APP 962/2010. LA.APP 1014/2010. LA.APP 1015/2010. LA.APP 1016/2010. LA.APP 1027/2010. LA.APP 1032/2010. LA.APP 1035/2010. LA.APP 1037/2010. LA.APP 1038/2010 & CM No. 12952/2011 Ccross-obiections), LA.APP 1039/2010 fCM No.12875/2011 & CM No. 12876/2011 fcross obiect.ionsV T,A.APP 154/2011, LA.APP 158/2011. LA.APP 274/2011, LA.APP 368/2011. LA.APP 379/2011, LA.APP 384/2011 & LA.APP 411/2011 (Relating to Notification No. F.No.l l(36)/94-L&B/LA/5722 dated LA.AppNo.608/2009 & Connected matters Page 1 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. 5^^ April, 1995 issuedunderSection4 ofthe LandAcquisitionAct, 1894& Award No. 19/97-98,Village- Shahpur Garhi, Delhi) Present: Mr. DeepakKhosla & Mr. V.P. Rana, Advocatesfor appellants. Mr. Sanjay Podar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Ms. K.Kamoudi Kiran, Mr. Mohit Rao Jadhav & Ms. Navlin Swain, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR