Amar Singh Bhaduria v. Union of India & Anr.

1. A.App. No. 46.2/2010 N.o..65/2010 LA.App. No. 469/2O[1].O LA..App. No. 478/2010 LA.App. No. 5:84/2010 LA.App..Nb.iOj 2:/7010 AND LA.App.No 441 /2c 10 •LA.App No. 444/201() LA.App. No, 46/2010 LAApp. No. 459Z201 o LA.A.pp. No. 463/2010 LA:.App No. 467/2010 LAApp. Nb. 470/2010 L.A.App. Np. 580/2010 LA.App. No. 585/2010 i.A.App.No. 1013/2010 •1.A.App. N,442/2OJ() l:A.A.pp. No 446/2010 LA.App. No.457/2010 LA.App. No. 460/20.10 LA.App.No. 464/201 0 LA.App.No. 468/2010. LA.Apç. No. 471/2010 I.A.App. No. 5 83/201 0 LA.App.NO.]OJ.1'2010 LA.App.No17/2OI[7] AND APPEALS FILET) BY UNiON OF 1 LA..A.pp. No.46/2010. 1.A.AppNb. 59/2012 I A.A.pp. No. 47/20 10 LAApp.. No. 748/2010 IA.App. No. 751/2010 LA..A.pp. No. 753/2010 LA.Ap.p. No. 421/20.[1] & Connectd Appeals Ei F Vil1ag Maoodahad ll)1A I..A.App. No. 710/20.11 LA..App. No. 749/2010 LA.App. No. 754/2010 Page '1 1 A.App. N. 755/2010 LA.App. No. 756/2010 LA.App No. 858/2010. LA.App. No.859/2010 LA.App. No. 860/201() LA.App. No. 861.12010 LA.App. No. 862/201() LA.A3p. No. 863/201() LA.App. 'No. 865/2010 LA.App. No. 866/201.0 LA.App. No. 86712010 LA.App. No.868/20,10 1A.App, No. 869/201() LA.App. No. 267/201 I LA.App. No. 752/2010 LA.App, No, 2112012.LA.App. No, 56/2012 (Relating to Notification No. IF.7/60/200 1/1 &B/i..A/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 Masoodahad, I)eihi) CORAM:.0.. HON'E MR. JtJS!]TCE.SUN,IL GAUR O,RER. 14.03.2012

1. For 'Najafkarh Depot, MRTS Project', 610 bighas and 13 b'iswas of land of Village Masoodabad wa s acquired vidc Notiication of 5 II[1] August,.2003 under Sectio:4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 189 which was followed by Notiheation of 8th August, 2003 under Section 6 of the •I Sand Acquisition Act, 1894 resulting in passing of A'ard No.5/2005-06 granting comensation t th rate of Rs. 15.70 lacs per acre on the basis. of indicative price fixed by the Government of NC F of Delhi for the agucultural lands in I)ehi

2 In the iefeiencc sought by the claimants, interest @10% per annum was granted by the Refeicnce Court for the period of two yeais • ' i.e., 'from the' date f fixing.of the mmimurn agricultural pnceupto the datç of Notflication, compensation amount stood enhanced to Rs 18,84,000 per. acre Ioi the acquiied land in qucstion

3. Tnth ipstant ppeás, further enhancement of Rs.50 lacs per acre is sought'by the claimants, whereas the respondent in their appeals have sought 'setting aside of the impugned order of the Reference Court and restoration of the Award. Sin'ce the grounds urged in these appeals is I,A.App. No:421/2010 & C o nneaed Ap.P,.-O of Village Masoodahad • ' Page 2 common, therefore, by this common order; these appeals arc being disposed of.

4. On behalf of the appel Iaits/claimants, it is urged that the ianicd Reference Court has wrongly treated acquired lands as agricultural land and did not appreciate the potentiality of the acquired land as building site and assessment of the compensatio.n in respect of the acquired land ought to have been 'tiade on the basis of the average auction rate of residential andconi;:erciai. p'iots in Dwarka and the rates charged by the I)I)A while allGtt;ing. aJtemaiive plots is a ialid basis to arrive at true market value of theaquired land in question. During lhe. codrke of, hearing, it was poihtcd out by learned counsel for• the appcllnts/clairnants that Village Masoodabad was ui ham zed in the year 1963 and ional development plan was prepared by Delhi I)evelopmnt Authority in the year 1974 and the acquii[hn of the land in question was fOr the proposed residential purpose. Much reliance was placed upon Award (Lx.PW-1/3) pertaining to Village Mangolpur Khurd and Award (E..PW -1/4) of Village Mohamrnadpur Munirica of the Land Acquisition Collectoi, wherein compensation was assessed while• taking into eonideration the L&I)O rates, it is pointed out that[4] some parcel of acquired land abuts the main i)clhi-Najafgarh metalled road and in the adjoining Village Nangli Sakrawati there arc rndutries and Najafgarh Industrial Area is in the vicinity. According to the learned: counsel for the appellants/claimants, the bst piece of evidence, i.e. allotment of land in Village Maoodahad and Najafgàrh by DDA to Delhi.Jal Board at the rate of Rs.2() lacs per acre in the year 1993 has been illegally discarded by the Reference Court. Reliance is placed upon the decisions reported in Tindey & Ors. Vs. (Jnion ofindia & Anr, 200O(54)DRJ (DB) 384;,P.NSingh vs. Union of.,.....,. LA,App. No. 421/2010 & Connected Appeals of Village Masoodabad. Page 3 india, 1997 1 AD (I)el) 83; Hari Chand vs. Union of India, 91 (001) 1)1,1' 602 i)eihi Development Authority i's. Land Acquisition Collector & Oi s, 130(2006) 1)11 (1)13) Atma Sing/i (died) through LRc i's Slate of Harya.nu. & A;nr., AIR 2008 SC 709;.Ma/iabir Prasad Santuka and Ors. Vs ciiector, Cula.ck and Ors., (1987) 1. SCC 5.87; Thakur.Kuideep 3ng.h (D) Thr. L.R. & Ors i's. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 1272; Urn Prakash.(D) by LRs & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ann., 2004 VIII Al) (SC) 37; Urn Prakash i's. State of liaryana & Ors, 2011 1V A,) (SC) 382; Sagunt ha/a (dead) through LRs i's. Special Tehsildar (L.A.) 'and qts., AIR 2010 SC 984; Mahesh Dattátraj' Thirthkar vs. Stale of Ma/uirashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238, to assert that SM the compensation claimed in these appeals is just and reasonable.

7. On behalf. of the respondents, it was asserted by learned Senior Counsel for the respondnts that adoption of the auction rates of I)DA: or L&I)() rates in respéet of agricultural, land stands negated by the Apex Court in decision in Lq( Jvand vs Union of India and Anr, (2009) iS SCC 769 It was aIso uEged. by leai nd counsel for the respondents that despite Village Masoodabad being declared to he urhamied, the acquired land in question continued to he used as agricultural land an& therefore, instaces of Village Mangolpur Khurd and V ilage. Mohamrnadpui Muniika are ohio avail and the instancc of allotment of.hmd by IDA 'i favour àf Delhi Jal I3oard cannot he treated to be iepresentative price of the lands in the vicinity as the cvidence is lacking ve'grding said instanceS to he comparable for determining the market value of the land in quCstion. Reliance was placed upon decision of the Apex Courtin Sp.aI&Qrc. 'Vs. Union of india, (1997) Ii SCC 423 to assert that if in a: shrtp$ki'd there is a sha'rp ii:crease in price, than the usual pievalent tiend in the market, such an instance cannot he taken as J Page 4 1A.App. No. 421/2O1O&COflpeCted ppeais of Village Masoodabad, realistic priOc unless and until the reasons for such sharp rise are explained and.there is no explanation to justify the adoption of Delhi Jal Board instance to determine the market value of the acquired land in question..8.: As regards the potentiality of the acquired land in question is concerned, it is contended br1arned Senior counsel for the respondents that no development activity took place in the vicinity nor any building. activity had started in the adjoining areas despite Viilage.Masoodabad being declared as urban and so the decisions relied upon by the appe11nts/ôIairn ants are distinguishable on facts. in the appeals preferred by the respondents, enhancement in the S compensation aniount is assailed on the ground that the annual increase to be given is dependent upon the nature of evidence led and in the instant matters; there is no evidence showing increase in the market price of the land in question till its acquisition. It is asserted that doing away of classification of acquired lands m question by Reference Court is illogical and without anyjustification I hus, setting aside of the irnpuned judgment and restoring of the Award of the I and Acquisition Collectoi is sought by the respondents Factors,:and test tp.dtemine the true market value of the acquired land.. iaye. been restated by the Apex Court in its recent decision in Rad/ta Mudaliyar vs Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) Tamil Nadu.Mous.1igBoar,..(2oi.o) 13 SCC 84, in these wOrds:- Comparth/e sales instances are the vafci method br determining the market value of the acquired land and as lad down in Sh4i Kür.iäkose v. Indian Oil COrpn. Ltd., (2001) 7 SCC:650, itthouid satisfy the factors, inter alia, (1). the sale must be a genuine transaction; (2) the sale deed must hav been executed at the. time proximate to the date of 1csuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act (3) 1L.J LA.App.No. 421/2010 & Co.nnec.te:d.Appe.ais oVfflage Masbodabad Page 5 the land covered by the sale must he in the V1C1fl1I)) of the acquired land, 4) the land covered by the sale must: be similar to the acquired land, and (5) size of the plot of the land covered by the cale be compai able to the acquired land. The sales instances shOuld prefrahly be closest to the date of the notification as then alone it would thtisfj' the. touchstone of the.prin'cz'ies con'templQted under Section 23: of the Act, as held in Kanwar Singh v. Union of India, (1998[8] SCC 136. "...... 1 1. Having heard tearne.d counsel for the parties in these matters and. upon perusal ol the impugned judgment evidence on iccoid and the decisions cited, I proceed on the premise that the burden of proving inadequacy of the compensatiQn amount: is upon the appellants/claimants. Now it is to he seen as to whether the appellants/claimants have been successful in dischargin.g this burden or

12 No doubt, purpose for which the acquisition is made is an important factor, but th o qitestion as to whethcr the acquiied land has potcntial value or not, is primarily one of fact depending upon its condition, situation, user, to which it is put or is icasonaby capable of being put and proxuity to residential, commercial or industnul or institutional area The existing amenities like water, clectncitv, possibility of theirfi.rther extflsion and the prospects of development in the area have to he taken into consideration. It has been SO reiterated by the Apex Court in Atma S.ingh (spri). It is in this context, I have scluuni/cd the cvidcncc on record and I flnd that there is hardly any evidence regarding...t]:pgiahy of the area adjoining the acquired. land in question and the evtclence led regarding the akv shizra (Ex PW- 2/1) of th.i s viUage dk.esnöt throw any light on this vital 'aspect, except that the evidence led to ro've:this' dOcument adversely reflects, that on the eastern side of Vi:ilgeMaoodabad, there is Najafgarh drain, which LA.App. No. 42i'/2OiO & Connected Appeals, Masoodahad.. Page 6 q Fiflc instead of enhancing the potentiaIity, rather diminishes it. The witness who was got examined to prove the aks shizra of Village Nangli LSakI awati (Lx PW-4/1) concedes that the metalled road between Village Nangli Sakrawati and Vi.lIge Masoodaba.d is not reflecte[4] in the ak shizra. Evidence of.this. witness (PW-4) instead of advancing the case of the appellants/claimants regarding the potentiality, reduces the potentiality of the acquired land in question.

13. There is no evidnce to establish thecomparahilitY of the acquired. lands under Award (Ex.PW113) pertaining to Village.Mangolpur J(hurd and under Award (Ex.PW-.1/4) of Village oharnnwdpur Munirka with tlte acquired land in question. Rather, as per evidence of the concerned official (PW-1O), Award (Ex.PW-lO/l) pertained to West Patci Nagar for Metro Projçct Thus, In the considered opinion of this Court, Reference Court has rightly excluded the aforesaid Awards (Ex PW-1/3 & Lx PW-l/4) to determine the fair market value of the acquired land in question Self serving deposition of claimants regarding potentiality of acquired lands in question, in the absence of corroboiatiVe evidence, is not enough to return positive finding on this crucial aspcct, paiticulallY in view o the fact that evidence regarding industries being thrc in the vicinity of acquired lands is lacking

14. So far as the Dethi ial.Boarcl instance (lix.PW-411) is concerned, 1 find that even its comparabilitY with acquired land in,qStiOfl is not established as the witness (PW-5) who has deposed in iespect of this tranctiOfl has. concede.that.he is not able to tell the distance from the said land to the land in question Therefore, Reference Court has rightly not relied upon the.Deihi Jail ôard instance (Ex.PW-4/1). 15 it has óoine In evidenc of the appe1lants/claifl that there is no Government hospital or col:ege in Village Ma.sooda1ad and the evidence 1,A.App. N).42l/20 0fl 1S0 J regarding the acqid land in question being Suounded by developed colonies is lacking. In the face of such deficient evidence, there is no Scope for enhancement of compensation in the instant appeals. Such' a COflC1USi0 is being drawn while keeping in View the ratio of the precedetts cited. Having failed to establish tile PotetiaJity of the acquired land in question the appeJlantS/clajiants have to. remain Content With t[1] ssessrnent of cOrnpei-isati I oil on the basis of' the indicative price of the agriculturJ land byGovcrni iit of NCT olDejhj as undisputedly, the acquired land in ' question were being, used f agncultujJ purpose or at the time of its acqulsitioii - 16. Upon Scrutiny of the evidence on reord, it becomes quite apparent that despite Village.Masoodabad being decli-ed as urban, the acquired land in question were being used for agricultural purpose by the appellants/claImants and so, adoption of indicative price of agricultural lands by Govenijent Uf,NCT of Delhi appears to be a leasonabic Lntcrla for dcteimining the maiket value of the cquiied 1and in question as on the date of Notificatioji uder Secti on 4 of the Land A quisition At 1894 Su?h a view is being taken as the acquired land in question was admittedly undeveloped and thetefoic adoption of DT)A auction rates or L&DO rates is not permissible in View of thá dictum of the Apex Court, in La'! ha.j'd (supra), which has been qoted with approval by the Apex Court in its latest deciion in Thakup Kideep Sing.h.'(sup.ra).

17. Regarding increase of 1 O% per annum over and above The minimum indicajve price fixed by Government of NCT of i)eihi, the same cannot he assailed by the 1espoñdent as the Reference Court has done so while - of the ApexCourt in Uion qf India vs. Harpat, (2009) 14 SCC 375. This Court finds that the IA.App No. 421/2010 & Connected Appeals of Village Masoodahaci I age 8 (&P j[4] D Reference court wá itii•ffed in granting the aforesaid increase of 10% per annum while re1viiguon the decision in Harpat (supra).

8. tn the light of the for-.going narration, I find no infirmity in the imptgnd ju.gi nt in which fair compensation has been assessed in respect of the acquired 'land in question. Relerence ('ourt. has rightly not classified the acquired land in question into 'K category and 'B' category, as Laic[1] Acquisition Collector in the Award in question has unequivocally stated that no classification of the acquired land is required to be done as the acquired land is leveled;

19. Consequentially, the appeals of the appellants/claimants as well as appeals of Union of India are dismissed, while leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Registry is directed to remit the compensation amount, if any, deposited by either side with the Registrar General of this Cotirt, to the concerned Reference Court. GAUR) JCDGE $14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 145/2012 AMAR SINGH BHADUfflA Through:

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: Appellant Proxy counsel ('appearance not given) Respondents Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Advocate for UOI/LAC COR41V: HON'BLE MR.

JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER 12.12.2012 Vide office note, typographical error pointed out in the order of 2' May 2012 is that instead ofLA.App. No.421/2010, Suresh Parshad ilias Karl Kishan vs. Union of India & anr., inadvertently citation of LA.App. No. 1195/2008, Ranbir Sharma vs. Union of india, rendered on 6th January, 2012 has been noted. Let LA.App. No. 421/2010, Suresh Parshad alias Han Kishan vsj Union of India & anr., rendered on 14th March, 2012, be substituted in place of LA. App. No. 1195/2008, Ranbir Sharma vs. Union of India, rendered on 6 January, 2012 in the order of 2 May, 2012. NIL GAUR,J DECEMBER 12, 2012 )