Birinder Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

0 No. 470/70 0 1.A.App. No. 471/2010 \.App. Nb. 478/20 0 1.A..App. No. 580/7010 1.AAp[1] No, 8 '70l[1] 0 \..'pp. NO, 5$4'20I0 I.A.App. No, 385/20H 1./\.AppNo 10 /2(4.10 \.App.No. 10 12/2010 1.A.App.No. 1013/2010 l.A.App. No. 1/201 AND APPJ:A[1],S EllA/i,) BY UNION OF INDIA I A. A pp. Nol. 746/201 0 1.A App. No, 59/201 12 1 A. A pp. No. 7 A App. No. 747/12010 l.A App. 'No.. 74.8/2010/\ I ii'. No. 749/1010 I.A.App. No, 751112 010 J.A.App. Nc,

1. A.App. No. 866/2010 1 A.App. No. 867/2010 L/\.App. No. 869J20 10 I.A.App. No. 267/2011 I A.App. No. 21/2012 1 A.App. No. 56/2012 I... LA.App. No. 858/2010 I A.App. No.861/2010 I.A.App. No. 865i'2() 0 I.A.App. No. 868/201 () I./\Anp. No, 752/2010 (Relating to N o t i hcation No. 1. 7/60/2001/I..& 1l..'\ / NikJjJ\"/7±274 ol)3.08.2003isLJ.iLupdJSJjgn[4] of the land Acquisition Act. 1894 &. Award No. 5/200-06 ot \illane Masoodabad. 1)elht) ('()RAM:

51 I 10 N'll 3 II-E AIR..JUS1'I(IE S.LJINII. (;AIIR OR U E R % 14.03.2012 For 'A/a/ajkarh Depot, It/IRiS Project, 610 bighas and 13 biswa.s > ol' land of \'illage Masoodabad was acquired vide Notification o•I tIi A uust. 2003 tinder Section 4 of the I and Acquisition. et. I $94 ch was fI I OWed by N1i ficatioñ of 8 Auust. 2003 UnCIC17 cct on 6 o it he I _and.'\cquisii ion Act. 1 894 result inn in passin of i\ ward No.5.2005.06 granting compensation at the ritc of Rs. 15,70 lacs per acre on the basis of indicati 'c price fixed by the Government of NC1' of Delhi fr the acricuftural lands in I )elhi. In i Ic re frencc soughi by the claim ants, interest 1 0% per aim unm was nianteci by the Re ference (ourt for the period o f. two years, i.e., from the date of lixing of the minimum agricultural Price upto the date of Notification. i.e., compensation amount stood enhanced to Rs. 1 8,84,000 per acre ft)r the acquired land in question. In the i nstanl. appeals, further enhancement of Rs. 50 lacs per acre is sought by the clai manl.s. whereas the respondent in ihLi r appeals ha\.:e souu.ht setline aside of the impugned order of the Re ference (ourt and rest oration theA ward. Since the i rounds u rcod in 1 hese appeals is I AtApp. No. 2 1/2010 & Connected i\peils of \'ilCie Misoodabad lage 2 atLtk. common, therefore, by this common order, these appea Is are being disposed ol. On behal I' of the appellants/claimants ii. is urged that tiic learned Re ference Court has wi'onglv treated acquired lands as agricultural and and (.[1] i (1 not appreciate the potentiality ol the acq ri red I and as H Id ng site and assessment of the compensation in respect of the acquired land o1i0h[1] to have been made on the basis of the average auction rate of residential and commercial plots in l)warka and the rates charged by the DDA \vhi Ic allotting alternative plots is a valid basis 1.0 arrive at true market value of the acquired land in question. i.)uring the CourSe of hearing, it was pointed Out by learned counsel for the appel lants/claimaits that \/il lage Masoodahad was urbanized in the year 1 963 and zonal development plan was prepared by Delhi Development Affihority in the year 1074 and the acquisilion of the I.nid in question was for the pro.osec.[1] ieidentoii pwpoc. Mach ichance as placed. ul. 0n Award l.x.PW- 1/3) perlainirg ic) \/illatLe Manuolpul K hurd and Award (kx.PW- I '4)of \/il age Mohammadpur Munirka of he I and /\cquisil ion (ollector, wherein compensation was assessed Iii Ic tak iii into consideration the I &1)() rates. It is pointed out that some parcel of' acquired land abuts the main I)elhi•Najafearh metalled road and in the adjoining Village Naiii Sakrawati there are industries and.Njailarh Industrial Area is in the vicinity.

6. According to the learned counsel lhr the appel lants/clai n1an1s the best piece or evidence, i.e. allotment of land in Village Masoodahad aiid Nuja.1arh h\ J.)DA to Delhi.Ial Board at the i'atc of Rs.2() lacs per acre in the year 1993 has been i lleal ly d iscarcled Ny the Rc1i'ence Court. Reliance is placed upon the decisions reported in /inde' S, Or.c. Vc. L/nwn of fiulia it 4nr, 200004)i )R.J (l)B) 31141 P. A'.Singh i'. (Inion '?I A.App. No. 1121 /2010 & Coiinected /\ppeais of Village Masoodahad Page 3 1/1(11(1, 1997 1 Al) ( Del ) 83 I-/art C/iand vc. (J,iini of India, 9 1 (2)0 I) DI I 60.?: Delhi i)evelop;nent 4 ut/i orTh.' us. I. and 4 cq'uisition (/Iector & Ors., 130(2006) l)'l 1(1)13); t/nui Sing/i (died) t/li'ou/i L R.c i's. S/ate Is of iIar'ana & 4,i r., A I k 2008 S C 709: /lahaInr Pras(nI LSanttika and ()rs. Vs Collector, Cu/tacit und Orc. ( 987't 5CC 587; Tizakur Ru/dee/) Siii'h (D)I Tl,r. L. R. & Ors rs. ('iiion of India & Ors., AIR

20 I 0 SC 272: Oin PraAas/i (D) hi' LRs & Or.c. vs. (illion of India & Anr., 2004 \/ I 11 Al) (SC) 37; Oni.Prakasl, i's. State ot llaiiiana & Ors, 2011 IV /\[) (SC) 382; Sagunthala (dead) through LRs vs. Special Tehsildar (LA.) and ors., AIR 2010 SC 984; Mahesh Dattatraj.' T/urt/ikar i's. State of Maharashtra, A I R 2009 SC 2238, to assert that, the corn pensation claimed in thesc appeals is just and easonabl e.

7. On behalf of the respondents, it was asseiled by I earned Senior Counsel for the rcspondents that adopt ion of the auction rates of DDA ot I,& 1)0 ratcs in respect of agri CLII tura I land staiids negated by the Ac.x ( 'oLirt in decision in Lal C/iand i's. (Inion of India and Anr., (2009) 15 5CC 769. Ii was also u.rted by learned counsel for the respondents that (1c)1 Ic V ill aae Masooda bad bcina (.leciared to be i.irban ized, the acquired land in question continued to be used as agricultural land and there fore, instances of Village Mangolpur Khurd and Vii lace Mohammadpur Munirka are of no avail and the instance of allotment of, 1an[1] by: DDA in ha\/OUr of I)clhi.Ja I l3oard cannot be treated to be representative price oi the lands in the vicinity as the evidence is lacking regard ii said instances to be Corn oarahl e for determining the market value of the and in question. Reliance was placed upor decision of I be Apex Court in Saipal & Ors. Vs'. (Inion o/India, (1997)11 5CC 42,[3] to assert that it in a short period there is a sharp in crease iii price., than the usual prevalent ftcnd in the market. sLich an instance cannot be taken as.A.App. No.421/2010 (:Oftd Appeals of \/Ilage Masoodahad Page 4 realistic pH cc unless and u nO J the reasons for such sharp H se are explained and there is no explanatron to j usti f\i the adoption Of Delhi Jal loarcl instance to determine the market. value of the acquired land in (itiest ion. As regards the potentiality of the acquired and in question is I concerned, it is contended by leartied Senior counsel br the respondents that no development activity took place in the vicinity nor any building activity had started in the adjoining areas despite \/iilage Masoodahad being declared as urban and so the decisions relied upon by the appellants/claimants are distinguishable on facts. It the appeals preferred by the respondelits, enhancement in the Al coil pensation amount is assailed on the ground that the annual increase to he 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 acquisi ion. It is assered that dome. avav of ci assi I cal ion 01 acc u i red I.tnds in question by R eIrence Court is ii ocical and \vilhoul any j usti licat.ioi-i. Thus, setting aside of the impugned.i udgrncnt and restoring of the Award of the [..and Acquisition Collector is sought by the respondents. lactors and test to determine the true market value of the acqufted land have been restated by the Apex Court. in its recent decision in Rad/ni !Wudaliycir vs. Special Te/isildar (Land /-lcqmsUion) Tumid,'Vudu Housing Board, (20 1 0) 13 SCC[3] 84, in I heSe words:- Compcirahie vu/es instances are the...a/dsi method /hr c/etet7nining the market value 0/ the acquir.d land aiid a. /111(1 down in..Shaji KuJ7ako,cc;. Inc/ian Oil Coipn. Ltd., (2001) 7 5CC 650, it should sat;s/t; the factors, inter a/i(, (1) 11w vale must he ci genii/ne 1r insOc 'lion: (2) tile sale deed in mmvi have been cxc 'ii ted a! the ti/ne proximate to ih.:• c/ale 0/ issuance o/ notifIcation mi,icier ecton 4 of i/ic Act; (3) LA.i\pp. No. 421 /2010& Connected Appeals of Village Masoodahad Page 5 q the lai'i.d coVered hV the sale 1111/Vt hc.' iii i/ic ilL inity /' I/il: (iCc//fired /0/ic: (4) the lu/ide ccn.'c,'ed /w i/i VU/C li/ifst he si/ni/ar to the (1Lc/u//"ec/ 1(1/id,' (ft/LI fl) ViZL (1/ the /1/01 (1/ the laiid co rci'ed h y 1/7 c xc;/c hc C()I771' )UO'/ll/C 0) f/iC (11.17 i.ured iiii/. 7/ic sales inn tcs.viioiild pre/erabl he closest to the We 0/ t/7e noi/icciion ci.s' then ci/one ii won/cl sat/sly the 107Th/iC ?/ "'• I'17C11)/( conten'ipicited under kSCCtIO/i 23 yl the /1 ct, as lie/cl Iii KQ1'lWUt' Singh. v. Ini.ofl of Indta, (1998)8 SCC 136. Tiaving heard learned counsel for the parties in these matters and upon perusal ol the impugned judgment, evidence on record and the decisions cited, I proceed on the premise that. the burden of proving i nadequacv a C the corn pensation am ouni is upon the appellants/claimants. Now it is to be seen as to whether the appl lani.s/clai mants have been successful in discharging dlis burden or riot.

112. No doubt. pu 'pose ror which the acq ui s 1 On is iii ade is an important factor, 1)ut the LluetloIi as to whether the acquired land has 'potential value or not, is pflnian lv one of fact depending upon its coTl(.litiofl, situation, user to which it is put or is reusombbb capable of l.cing put and proximity to residentiaj, commercial or industrial or institutional area.. The existing amenities like, water, electricity, possibility of their further extension and the prospects of development in the area have to be taken into consideration. It has been so reiterated by - the /\l:iex (ourt in 4/nia SinIi (supra). It is in this Cor text, I have sci'utiniied the evidenCe on record and.[1] Ii nd that there is hard lv any cv iclence regarding the topography a I' the area adjoining I he acq u led 1,111d in q nest ion:l tic! 1 he evidence led regarding the ak.s' shizro (Fx. PW- 2/I) of this village does not, throw any i i,ht on this vital aspect, except that tl'ie evidence led to prove this document adversely reflects that on the eastern s ide a I' Village \4asoodaha.d, there is Naj aigarh drain, which I.A.App. NC). 421/2010 & Connected Appeals of Village Masoodahad Page 6 teaci of cnlmricmg the P0t11h1htV, rather dimii'ishcs it, l'he \\!i1fleS[5] W ho was ioi exam i nOd.10 prove 1I.0 oks I?1I!( / 01 \' III a.LC NoJlgii I<ici'Ii (I.PW -4/1) concedes that. the metal led road betve.en \/iiiage Nang,li Sakrawati and Village /vfasoocial,ad is not reflected in the aks shizrc n i. Evidece of ib w is itness (PW-4) instead of advancing the case of the appellants/claimants regarding the potentiality, reauces we potentiality of the acquired land in question.

13. There is no e'idciice to establish the comparability ol' the acquired lands under Award (Fx.PW- 1/3) pertaining to Village Maugo!pui' Kimcci and under Award (1x.PW- 1/4) of \lj I lage Mohaminadpui" Muvi/i'Iw with the acquired land in question. Rather, as per evidence of ihe concerned oHicial (PW- 10). Award (Ix.PW- 10/I) pertained to West Patel Nagar or Metro Protect. IhUs. in the considered opinion of this Court, Re bronco Court has richtly excluded the a f'orcsaid /\wards (ix.PW- 1/3 &. hx.PW- 1/4) to determine the bait' market value of the acquired land in queStion. Self serving deposition of claimants regarding potentiality of acquired lands in question in the absence of corroborative evidence, is not enough to return positive finding on this crucial aspect, particularly in view Of the fact that evidencc regarding industries being there in the vicinity of acquired lands is lacking.

14 So far as the Dc/hi Ia! Board instance (tx.PW4/ I is concerned, I find that çven its comparability with acquired land in question is not established as the witness (PW-5) who has deposed in t-cspccl of this transaction has conceded that he is not able to tel I the distance from the said land to the land in question. There fre, Reference Court has rightly not relied upon the Delhi Ia! Board instance (I x.PW-4/ 1).

15. it has come in evidence of the appellants/claimants that there is no Government hospital or college in Village Masoodahad and the evidence IA.App. No. 421/2010 & Connected Appeals of Village Masoodabad Pag e] (P rCLard ng the acquired a nd in question hcing, surrounded by developed colonies is lack inc. It the face of such deficient evidence., thcre is no scope for enhancement of compensation in the instant appeals. Such a conclusion is being drawn while keeping in view the ratio of the precedents cited. 1 laying.1iled to establish the potentiality of the acquired laid in question, the appellants/claimants have to remain content with the assessment of compensation on the basis of the indicati\/e price of the agricultural land by Government oF NCl of Del hi as undisputedly, the acquired land in question were beinR used for agricultural purpose at the time of its acquisition.

16. Upon scrutiny of the evidence on record, it becomes quite apparent 1 hut. despite \/ ill age A/Jao.Icihud being declared as urban, the IPA, acquired land in question were being used for agricultural purpose by the appellants/claimants and so, adoption of indicati\'c price Of agricultural lands by Government of. NCE of Delhi appears to he a reasonable criteria for determining the market value of the acquired land in question. as on the date of Notification under Section 4 of the Land /ic'/u/.ci/l)u Act. 1894. Such a viev is being taken as the acquired land in question was admittedly undeveloped and therefore, adoption of 1)1)4 UT/Cf/Oil rn/cc oi' L& DC rate,c is not permissible in view of the dictum o I the Anex ('Ourl in La! Cliand (supra'), which has been quoted with approval by the Apex Court in its latest decision in Thakw Ku/deep S'ingh (supra.).

7. Rcgarcling increase of 1 0% per an ilu in over and a hove the lii lnimu]ri indicative price fixed by Government of NCl' of J)clhi, the same cannot he assai led by the respondent as the Reference Court has done SO \vhilC relying upon decision of the Apex Court in tlnwn If India vs. Harpat: (2009) 14 SCC 375. This Court flnds that the lA.Ap. No. 421/2010 & Connected Appeals of Village Masoodahad. ige 8... '•r p Nc rcncc Coo ii WnS ust ed in rant n, the a fresaid increase of I 0% per aflflLinl while. relyinu upon thedecision in 11(1173(1/ (supra).

18. In the I ight of I he fore-going narration, I findno infirmity in the im puened judgment in which Iaii' corn pensation has been assessed in respect of the. acquired land in question. Relerence Court has rightly not. classi fled the acquired land in question into 'A' cateory and 'R' (ItC()I'\ S Land Acquisition Collector in the Award in qtict in has unequivocal I)' stated tht no classiicati)n of the acqu red land is required to he done as the acquired land is le\'eled.

19. Consqucntia! ly, the appeals of' the appel lants/clain-ianis as well as appeals orI Qion of India are dismissed, while leaving the pai -ties to bear thei own costs. 10901 is di rccte.cl to remit the compensation amount, if any, depcsited h: either side with the Registrar General of this Court, to the concet-ned ReRi'ence Court. March 14, 2012 h - (StJN1L.11.J CAUR) pk DCF: P[1] I,AJ\i[1]. No. 4,2112010 & Con nerted Appeals of Village Masoodahad q[3] $ 12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ± LA.APP. 141/2012 BIRJNDER SINGH Appellant Through: Proxy counsel (appearance not given)