Union of India v. Veena Singh & Anr

1. Whether the Reporters pf local papuod. rnay be illowed '.. to'see the judgment?. '

2. To be referred to,'Reporter or not?:' 3..Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PBADEEP NANDRAIOG, l..

1. 'Vidb three awards as afore-noted'..prpnounced pursuant to three.notifications lssued under Section 4 of the Land.. \ Acqurstuon Act. 7894 'on' 2-".I[2].19.94' 28.4.!995 ?nd: 27.10.1999, agricultural lands in village'Shahbad Daulatpur.r were acqurred for development of 'Rbhini Phaisc-|V.. lt m.ay.be. nlgnltgnreo that lands for the.colony Rohini Were first acquired 'intheyear1961andfromtimet6timeacquisition5W.e.remadb as and when Rohini Phase-|, Roh'ini Phase-ll and Rohini Phase-. lll were developed and colonized. The effect of what I hbve. highlighted 'is that by the tim.e subject acquisitions were effected, the surrouhding lands frbO not.pn!.y been acquire.d but 'i "had.bee.n fully developed and largely'.coloniz'bd and thus'the subject la'nds had acquir.ed a building potentiality. ' 2.. When judgment was.res.erved iri.the instdnt appeals. on 19.8.2011, argume.nts' were - advanced and decision w?s. ",reserved in Appeals pertaihing to.acquisition of larid in the adjoining, village Rithala. Agri.rlturri iunO, of 'said villag! LA.App.No.358/2007 & conirected matters Page 2 ofL0,t \E, Rithala were also acquired for the expansi'on of the Rohini Residential Scheme pursuant to a notification dated 2!.7.1993 issued undei Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894.. 3. Arguments advanced in the instant appeals were the:. same as were advanced in the ap.peals pertaining to village Rithala and thus, since I heive dealt with the arguments while pronouncing decision today in the appeails pertaining to village Rithala, I need not re-pen the arguments and 'my reasons:' dealing with thb same

4. Suffice would it be to state that, amongst other arguments, one argument advanced.'was with respect to ". subject lands having acquired a nuiiOing pgtentiality. This was, one of the many arguments advanced in the appeals pejrtaining to village Rithala.:'

5. I had rejected all aiguments save'and except the one qua building potentiality, and for which reasons.could be gathered from the decision pronbunced today.pertaining to village Rithala and the teaO matter is LA.APP.No.656/2008 Srth!! - KuinAr vs. UOI &' Ors. The same may be treated as incorporated by reference in the present decision.

6. With reference to the decision of the Supreme Court reported as 1995 (2) SCC 305 P.Ram Reddv & Ors. vs. Lahd grs.,, on the principle of subject lands having acquired ? building potentiatity, but there being no reliable eviden,ce to translate the.potentiality into a money valUe, as held in the decision in P.Ram Redd-v.'scase (sUpra), on the basis of market. ' value determined as per actual user | 'have, to give effect to building potentiality acquired, enhanced the price by 1b% and. LA.App.No.35812007 & cqnnected matters I \{ on, said basis, pertaining to the- ncitification dated 2L[7].1993 have determined'fair market value pf land in.village Rithala as of said date to be {1,53,000/- per bigha and woulO trightight that the said. sum wa: arrived.at on the basis that as p.er actual user fair market value on said date would be {1,39,026.40 per bigha.,

7. Giving Same'benefit to'the subject lands and with reference to the fact that as of 2I.7.1993, factoring in the benefit of building potentiality, for adjoining village Rithal,a I ' have determined fair market value at {1,53,000/-; taking the said price and the said date as the base indices, pertaining to the notifications dated 23.I[2].L994 and 28.4.1995, increasing, the land price by"70% per annum, |.determine the fair market value.to be t[1],69,515.61 per bigha i.e, T[8],13,674.92 per acie, rounded off to t[8],13,675/- per acre as of'..23.1.2.L994 and T[1],83;39 O.4I per bigha or {8,80,273.96 per acre rounded. off to {8,80,275l- per acre..8. Appeals by thb land owners pertaining:to the said two notifications are partially allowed by increasing the compensation payable as above.,. 9, Pertaining to the nbtification dated 2.L0.1999, it needs to be highlighted that the learned Additional D{strict Judge.has determined fair market value at t12,96,455.89 per acre on.the. strength of the minimum price notified by the Government for ag.ricultural lands as of L.4J999 '1.0. lf I weie to adopt the land price at {1,53,000/- per bigha as of 2I.7,J'gg[3] and increase the:same by I0% per annum, as I.. have done for the previous two notifications, the land price would come to t1l- fg,728/- per acre, which would be less than LA.App.No.3 58/2007 & connected matters Page 4 of10 \1 the minimum price notified by the Goveinment.with' effect from 1.4.1999,..

11. I do not do so for the reason, in tny judgment delivered on 23.8.20L[1] deciding A batch of appeals, lead matter being LA.APP. No.26612008 lai Sinah vs' UOI &'Anr'' discussing the notifications issued by the Government of Delhi from time to time enhancing market value of agricultural lands and decisions by Courts on the issue of market value of agricultural lands on variousldates and in particular the decision' of a Division Bench of this Court reported as 2006 tiVl nO (Delhi) in paragraPhs 49 to 52 | had observed as under:- LA.App.No.35812007 & connected matters " "4g.,l have,'in para 37 above, rioted a decision' of a Division 'gench of this Court ' in m.npp.wo.866/2005 decided on. 11'5'2006' Mahender Sinqh vs. UOI & Ors..wherein peftaining to vittage Bawan=aJair market value determined as of 15.li.1996 is T[1],99,904.68 per bigha which equals to T[9],59,542.46 per acre. The said decision would be reievant on the issue of potentiality, an issue which I.have promised to discuss. The decision notes that the subject lands i.e. the lands with which the Division Bench was concerned, had acquired a potentiality inbsmuch as, as discussed in paras 25 to )A of the -decision, rural areas in the' Union Territory 'of Delhi.was attracting migrants. ' Based on population growth, 5 villages. in rura.l.. Delhi were identified f-or providing major health facilities, schools, markets and rural industry, one of which was viliage Bawaha. lt was noted'that G.T.Karnal Road and Rohtak Road were providing good access to village Bawana and that the Mastbr Plan for Delhi notified- in the year 1990 had indicated the land use ' in the area.to be changed in the future to industrial.and commercial, but had also observed that notwithstanding this, for the reason no' zonal plan. was notified as contemplatgd by section 11A of the t[8] D'elhi Development Act Ig57, the iands.continued to be used for.agriculturaI purposes and there was rio evidence that till the year 1996, any land use had been actually changed and put to the use contemplated by the Master Plan. As in the instant case, where all subject lands were continuously put' to agricultural use, same was the case noted in the said decision, To put it pithily, the potential use of ' the lands giving. birth to a potential land value with reference to the area being known to all as being required in the future for building purposes, was ' found not resulting in the potential being valued with reference to the potentiality i,e. the lands being, in the near future capable of being built rjpon. To put it differently, the decision, though not so e>gpressly. stating, would be a proposition that there is a.difference between. the undeveloped land having. building potentiality in presenti vis-ir-vis a land having a building potentiality, in futuro. As already noted by me in para 36 above,.'as of, the date 15.11.1996, fair market value determined was. T[9],59,542.46 per acre and'which.I highlight once again is the same as would be determined with reference.to the notification being closest in point of time i.e. the notification dated 25.7.1997 where-.under for agricultural lands in Delhi minimum price fixed by the Government'as of !.4.1997 was.t10 lakhs per acre. lnterestingly, the same Division ', Bench had pronounced another judgment reported,as 2006 lV AD (Delhi) 13 Gairai Sinoh vs. UOI & Anr. ' where pertaining to agricultural lands in village Holambi Kalan where 940 bigha and 6.. biswa land. was acquired pursuant to the same notification dated 15,11.1996, 'fair market value. determined 'fo'r Category 'A' lands was <9,76,12U- per acre and for Category 'B' lands was T[9],51,12U- per acrb i.e, near approximate to the fair market value of lands in' village Bawana. lt needs to be highlighted that while determining the fair market value as of 15.11.1996 in village Holambi Kalan, evidenced, from the observations of the Court in para 19 and 20 of.the decision, location and potentiality with reference to development work carried out in 'the surrounding. 'lands was qonsidered. I would highlight that another LA.App.No.3 58 12007 & connected matters Page 6 ofL0: l[1] Division Bench of this Court, in another adjoining 'village in the same 'V' i,e, between G.T.Karnal Road and Rohtak Road, i.e. village Singholei determined fair market value as of 19.3.1993 @ {1,30,523/- ber bigha i.e. T[6],26'510.40 pelacre.. The decision is reported as 2004 (4) AD (Delhi) 20 Ram Chander vs., L/O!and the same Division Bench, as per the decision reported as'111 (2004) DJ 95. Hukum.Srnqh vs. UOl, pertaining to a notification dated 74.I.I994 for village Singhola determined fair market value @ <I,40,230/- per bigha i.e. T[6],73,.70.4/- per acre.

50. The aforesaid judgments noted in the preceding; paragraphs as also the various notifications issued from time to time by the Government of NCT Delhi notifying minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi as tabulated by me in para 7 above bring out two very. important facts relevant to determine the growth/rise in the prices of agricultural land in Delhi over the years commencing from the year 1990. As of 27.4.1990 minimum.price was t[4].65 lakhs per acre which rose to t10 lakhs per.' acre as of I.4.1997 i.e. the increase.is t[5].35 lakhs spread over. 7 years which gives us a. L.l5'.054% increase in 7 years and the average pri'ce increase would be 16.436%. Thb price rise.over the next 1 year is by IL2% and thereafter by.AIo/o for the next 2 years and 71.5% for the next year i.e.. as of ]-'.4.200t. 1t shows that due to urbanizdtion, between the year 1990 and 1997 prices grows fairly sharply '. and good corroborative evidence for this.wou'ld be i the decision of the Division Behch of this Court in Gairals case (supra), which I have discussed in para 49 above

51. I need to elaborate a.little more with respect to'the decision in Ga.traJs case. Discussing the evidence pertaining to fair market. value of agricultural land in vil'lage Holambi Kalan as of '15.11.1996, in paras 9 to 17 the Court discussed the valdation on the.basis of agricultural yield and found that the gross return pdr'.acre.per annum was T95,000/- for multiple cropped.land and having good LA.App.No.3 58 /2007 & connected matters irrigation facilities and thus capitalized the land price at kg.S lakhs per acre. Discussing the second method of land prices 'of comparable lands in the surrounding areas including potentiality, in para 19 onwards the Court discussed the 'matter with reference to land prices in adjoining village Bhorgarh where FCI Godowns had come up and based on sale. instances found that based on the said sale instances and giving benefit of industrialization the land pricg would come to t10,03,3641- per acre (Refer para 31). The Court then considered the prices notified by the Government as per policy dated.!.4.1997 and thus worked out the mean average figure of {9,76,I2I1per acre for Category 'A[1] lands and t[9],5.1;121l-. per. ' acre for.Category 1B' lands. The decision.highlights' that the potentiality had been well-factored in when the Government issued the minimum price notification w.e.f. I.4.1997, evidenced by the fact that even with respect to sale transactions the Court found that as against the minimum pricle notified as of 7.4.1997 at t10 lakhs per acre, sale' instances were highlighting that the price was t10,03,364/- per 'acre.

52. The decision in Mahender Sinqh's case, pertaining to village Bawana, referred to,by me in, para 49 above, highlights with reference tp para 28 to 31 of the decision that the Master Plan for Delhi 1990 h.ad been taken into accpunt by the Coutt which was proj€cting residential, commercial and industrial future exploitation of agricultural land in Delhi and on the issue of potentiality had noted that nbtwithstariding the Master Plan so projecting and the lands theoretically acquiring a potentiality, the same had not translated into a reality evidenced by the fact that till the year 1996 i.e. the date of the notification with which the Di.vision Bench was concerned, virtually'no development had taken place in village Bawana and Holambi Kalan.'and nobody.'. had exploited the potential. As I have already highlighted in para 49 above there is a gap between what would be expected to be the market growth. and what the market actually grows. The decisions LA.App.No'.[3] 58 12007 & connected matters Page 8 of10 v\ in Gairals caie and Mahe:nder Sinoh's case highlight,that potentiality translated itself into a reality between 1990 and 1997 when prices rose by about 165% per annum and thereafter the extended potentiaiity qid not translate wlth !h" requisite momentum and the acceleration fell to between I0% per anhum to lIo/o per annum. One reason could be ihat pursuant to M.aster Plan for Delhi 1990 a fairly, large area came to be developed, both resid€ntial, commercial and industrial and probably there was enough availability of developed land and the hunger of the market got saturated."

12. The decision highlights that by the year 1997'i.e. when w.e.f. 14.Igg[7] minimum price deterniined by the Government was {10,00,000/- per acre, building potqntiality impacti,hg the value of agricultural lands in Delhi had already been fa|tored in and thus I hold that pertaining to the notification dated

27. IOJggg; the land value determined by the learned Reference Court is borrect and thus all appeals pertai,ning to said notification are dismissed leaving the'parti.es to bear'their own costs.

13. To summ arize:- (a) All appeals pertaining ' to the notification. dated ZZ.tZ.lrgg[4] stand disposed of determining,fair mbrket value to be paid io the land owners'in.sum of {8,136,7501-'pgr acre together with statutory benefits as explained by the Supreme Court in the decision reported as 2001 (93) D.LT 569 Sund.er vs. UQ! plus proportionate costs... (b) ' All appeals pertaining to the notification dated 28.4;1995 stand disposed of determining fair market value to be paid to the land owners in sum of T[8],80,275l- per acre together with statutory benefits as explained by the Supreme Court in the LA.App.No.3 5812007 & connected matters Page 9 of10 d 1/1,/ proPortionate costs"

(c) All aPPeals Pertaining 'to ' dismissed leaving the 27.]-0.1999 are costs. decisionreportedas200l(93)DLT569Sundervs,tJo|p|us the notification dated parties to bear their own (PRADEE:,I$$P*o", SEPTEMBER 26, ZOLL dk ? LA.App.No '358t2007 & connected matters