Full Text
Through: Mr.S.K.Yadav,Advocate
Through: Mr.Sanjiv Sahay,Advocate for R-1.
Mr.M.K.Singh,Advocate for DDA.
ORDER(ORAL)
:REVA KHETRAPAT...T.
CM No.3159/201^
JUDGMENT
1. By way of the present application, the Appellant seeks condonation of 754 days delay in filing the Appeal on the ground that his counsel had met with an accident and had suffered head injury,which is supported by the Affidavitofthe counsel Mr.RavinderDabas,Advocate.
2. For the reason stated in the application, delay in filing the Appeal IS condoned subjectto the condition thatthe Appellant shall notbeentitled tointerestforthe aforesaid period.
3. Application standsdisposed ofaccordingly. LA.APR 42/20n Paee I of[2] 2013:DHC:7903 LA.APP.42/2013
1. The learned counsel for the Appellant states that the present Appeal may be disposed ofin terms ofthejudgment in the case of*Shri Ramesh Kumar Vs. Union ofIndia and Ors^ in LA. APP.No.608/2009 rendered on 23'^''December,2011. The land in the present case pertains to Village Shahpur Garhi and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 5'^ April, 1995. The said village and the notification have already been dealt with by this Court in Ramesh Kumar's case(Supra).
2. The Appellant will accordingly be entitled to the compensation as per the saidjudgment being? 8,16,720/- per acre. LA.APP.42/2013 is disposed ofin the above terms. J- L— tUrr-f
REVA KHETRAPAL (JUDGE) March 15,2013 km LA.APP.42/2013 Pase2of[2] ■5^ % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reservedon: S"'Nnveinber. 2011 Pronouncedon: 23'''December, 2011 T.A.APP No.608/2009 SllRl RAMESHKUMAR Through; Mr. Deepak Kliosla & Mr. Advocates...Appellant V.P. Rana, tS 1!:i!
VERSUS
UNIONOFINDIA &ORS. Respondents ThrouRlr Mr. Sanjay Podar, Senior Advoeate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Ms. K.Karnoiidi Kiran, Mr. Mohitrao Jadhav & Ms. Navlin Swain, Advocates. AND iTn/ooin r A APP 176/2010 & CM No. TUTapp?1q/?010 LA A?P 77Q/2010. LA.APP233/2010,—LAiALL I..PI..4»/20i« 1 ' -rr v'""o ' * "" 256/20liT&CMNoaigMmLic^^ TTUTTrTKoTomTi T A Al^ 259 /2010. LA.APP_^JAaLEaA2LA^ rn-r/omn T A APP S4S/2010. T.A.APP 549/201P^_E/,\.A__, LA.App No.608/2009 & Connectedmatters I m & 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 rcross-obiections), LA.APP 1039/2010 (CM No.12875/2011 & CM No.12876/2011 (cross objections), LA.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.ll(36)/94-L&B/LA/5722 dated 5^'^ April, 1995 issued under Section 4 ofthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 19/97-98,Village- Shahpur Garhi,Delhi) CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR QIUDER 23.12.2011
1. 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 was acquired by the respondent vide Notification of 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/- per acre or@^1,67,000/- per bigha.
2. In the Reference sought under Section 18 ofthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the claimants/ land owners i.e. the appellants, the Reference Court has enlianced the compensation to ?8,16,720/- per acre. Not satisfied with the aforesaid enhancementof^15,120/- per acre for the acquired land, appellants have come up in these appeals to seek much higher compensation i.e. enhanced compensation @?100/- per square yard.
3. For development of Freight Complex in Narela Project, vide Notification of 5"^ April, 1995, under Section 4 ofthe Land Acquisition LA.App No.608/2009& Connected matters Page 2 I r i c a I I f n •.;:i. i,i' n ■' I l| in Act, a large area ofagricultural landmeasuring 733 bighas and 10 biswas ol Village- Shahpur Garhi, Delhi was acquired by the respondents, l^he lactLial details disclosing as to how in pursuance to the aforesaid Notification, AwardNo. 19/97-98 came to be passed and the substance of the evidence ledbefore theReference Court stands notedin the impugned judgment and is not required to be recapitulated.
4. Before the Reference Court, assessment of the market value of the acquired landin question was sought on the basis ofDDA predetermined rate of the year 1992-93 pertaining to Narela Residential Scheme and on the strength ofDSIDC approvedlandrate for allotment ofplots in Narela Industiial Complex, which stands negated in the impugned order while relying upon decision of the Apex Court in Union ofIndia Vs. Ram P/wol (2003) 10 see 167. On the aspect of potentiality of the acquired land in question being near the developed land. Reference Court has extensively relied upon Division Bench decision of this Court in Gajraj Singh Vs. Union of India 2006 VI AD (Delhi) 13 in maintaining enhancement @\\.5Vo from the effective date of government policy of fixing minimum price of agricultural lands in Delhi, till Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued. Noting that the boundary of Village- Shahpur Garhi touches the boundary of Village- HolambiKalan, Reference Court in the impugned judgment has assessed the compensation in the instant case on the basis of the compensation, assessed by this Court in GajrajSingh (Supra) relating to Notification of 15 November, 1996, under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, pertaining to Village -HolambiKalan.
5. In these appeals, at the final hearing, the counsels present on behalf of the appellants as well as senior counsel for the respondents were heard and with their assistance, the impugned judgment and the record was LA.App No.608/2009 & Connected matters Page 3 it:? n n n ■' perused. Since the submissions advanced by both the sides in these appeals were common, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, these appeals and cross- objections are being decided by this common order.
6. The 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) that LAC has not taken into consideration that 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. hi) 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 petitioner is between two roads including a national highway i.e. Government KamaI Road, and Delhi Narela Road, therefore, it has great potentiality for residential and commercial purposes; that palatial farm house has been constructed in the same revenue estate in which land of the petitioner has been situated; v) that land of the petitioner is fully developed and 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.'
7. In substance, aforesaid grounds are the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants before this Court to challenge the impugned order of the Reference Court. Undisputedly, the land use of the acquired land in LA.App No.608/2009 & Connectedmatters Pa^e 4 ■' 1.. kvi /" queslion was agricultural at the time of issuance of Notification under Section 4 ofLand Acquisition Act in question. The main ground to seek enhancement ofcompensation put forth on behalfofthe appellants is the potential value ofthe land in question. Though the stand ofthe appellants herein before the Reference Court was that the land in question is strategically located from the commercial and industrial point ofview,eis 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.
8. Appellants 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)ofa plot in Ncirela Industrial Complex@?650/- per square meter in the year 1990 by DSIDC. It is also claimed by the appellants that allotment of altcrmite plot under the Narela Residential Scheme by DDA in the year 1992-93, was available @ ^650/- per square meter as per demand cum allotment letter (EX. PW2/1). Thus, seeking parity with aforesEiid rates of developed lands, enhancement in compensation is sought by the cippcllants.
9. On the factual aspect, it stands noted in the impugned judgment that the land of the villages adjoining the 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 acquired land is in proximity ofthe industrial area developed by DSIDC, learned senior counsel for the respondent has clarified that the purpose of acquisition ofthe land in question is solely for the developmentoffreight complex in Narela. However, it was disputed that the acquired land in LA.App No.608/2009& Connected matters 5 / n ww. \0 question is surrounded by any developed colony and thus, it was contended that the appellants cannot claim enhancement of the compensation by relying upon the rate of land in Narela Industrial Complex or under the Narela Residential Scheme floated by DDA.In this regard reliance was placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in Lai Chand Vs. Union ofIndia iSc Anr.(2009) 15 SCC 769. Reliance was also placed upon a decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in LA.APP 266/2008 JaiSingh Vs. Union ofIndia & Anr.,rendered on 23"' August, 2011, wherein in relation to this village, pertaining to an acquisition of land vide Notification of 16^'' May, 2002, amount of compensation was determined at ^18,65,500/- per acre while relying upon a Division Bench decision ofthis Court in GajrajSingh Vs. Union ofIndia 2006 IV AD(Delhi)13.
10. Even in the impugned judgment,in the absence ofsale instances, Reference Court has relied upon Gajraj Singh (Supra), wdierein pertaining to acquisition of the land of the adjoining village- Holambi Kalan, in relation to Notification of 15"' November, 1996, the compensation determined was @ ^9,76,121/- per acre for A Category land and @^9,51,121/- per acre forB Category land.
11. Reference Court has rightly concluded that grounds of challenge laid to the Award, as noted in paragraph No.6 herein above, against the Award in question,remains unsubstantiated by the appellants.
12. While relying upon two deeisions of the Apex Court in Bhim Singh Vs. State ofHaryana (2003)10 SCC 529 & Union ofIndia 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& Connected matters Page 6 •• i;; /;■;■■: ^ '.. -.r, >. 'm P^' ^IPPPI m m \V p vi
13. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellants were not able to show that the aforesaid decisions are inapplicable nor any decision to the contrary was cited. Infact, Apex Court in its recent decision in Lai Cliarul Vs. Union of India (2009) 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 ol 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 recognizedmethodsfor 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 thereforeform the basis for determining the market value in land, acquisition cases, as a. relevantpiece ofevidence. It will be however open to either party to place evidence to dislodge the presumption that mayflowfrom 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 Committees, in accordance with the prescribed assessment procedure (either streetwise, or roadwise, or areawise, or villagewise) and finalized after inviting objections andpublished, in the gazette. Be that as it may.
48. Even if the relied upon transaction is only two to three years prior to the acquisition, the Court should, before adopting a standard esealation, satisfy itselfthat there were 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 immovable properties in most 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 that as it may. It is clear that the award, made in regard to a 1961 acquisition will not be of any use for determining the market valuefor a 1981 acquisition. ' LA.App No.608/2009 & Connectedmatters Page 7.if'. fp';-' n n. V /' m iv
14. The aforesaid decision ofthe Apex CourtinLaiSingh(Supra),has been followed by a Coordinate Bench ofthis CourtinJaiSingh(Supra), which also applies on all fours in these matters as well.
15. On the potentiality aspect,neitherthe map/sizra(EX.PW3/A)nor any other evidence, establishes that apart from the DSIDC,there is any development in the vicinity ofthe acquired land. As already observed above,no sale instances ofthe nearby area are forthcoming to depictthe potentiality ofthe area in question.It has to be kept in mind that tlie land m question has been acquired fordevelopmentofthe freightcomplex and not lor the developmentofa residential area.Exceptthe oral assertion of the appellants/claimants thatthe acquired land is forthe developmentof the RohiniResidential Area,thereis no tangible evidenceto establish this factual assertion.
16. Cross objections filed by the respondents to maintain the rate of compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector and not to adopt the ratio ofdecision in Gajraj(Supra), are found to be withoutsubstance for the reason that undisputedly Gajraj(Supra)has attained finality and because it has not been shown by the respondents asto how this decision of the Division Bench of this Court has been wrongly applied by the Reference Court to the facts ofthe instant cases. Rather, I find that the Reference Courthas correctly relied uponthe decision in Gajraj(Supra), to aiiive atthe correctmarketvalueoftheacquired land in question.
17. Since the decision of the Division Bench ofthis case in Gajraj (Supra), has attained finality and it is the basis of the decision of a Coordinate Bench ofthis Courtin JaiSingh(Supra),and is also the basis of the impugned order, therefore, I find no infirmity in the impugned order, adopting the rate ofcompensation as fixed by Division Bench of this Court m Gajraj(Supra),in the matter ofadjoining village- Holainbi LA.App No.608/2009& Connected matters 1 ago U M' I © /Ca/a«.Even thereduction oftherate ofcompensation assessed @11.5% compound interest from the date ofNotification of15'" November,1996 in (Supra)to dateofNotification of5'" April,1995 in the instant case IS concerned,I find thesame to bein conformity with the decision in Gapaj (Supra), wherein annual compounding @11.5% has been appioved. As neithei side could find fault in tlie impugned judgment deteimining the maiket value ofthe land in question @?'8,16,720/- per acre,therefore,theappealsofthe claimantas well ascross-objections of therespondentsare dismissed,with noorderastocosts.Accordingly,all the above-mentioned appeals and cross-objections are disposed of with direction to the Registry to remit the compensation amount, if any. deposited by either side with the Registrar Generalofthis Court,to the conceincd Reference Court. -^"=^UNIL GAUR)' JUDGE December 23,2011 f.S LA.App No.608/2009& Connected matters Page;9