Surjit Singh & Ors v. Union of India & Anr

5. Another parcel of land ad-measuring 929-05 bigha, situated in the same revenue estate of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri was acquired pursuant to a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, dated 30.07.1998, for the same public purpose i.e. 'Rehabilitation of JJ Cluster'. This was followed 1by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act issued on 04.084998. After following the due process, the Land Acquisition Collector announced an award bearing No.18/2000-01 dated 12.03.2001, whereby he assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at !2,33,333 per bigha which isl equivalent to T11.20 lakhs per acre. • 6. Dissatisfied with the asessment made by the Land Acquisition Collector, the land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Ilearned Reference Court, in the lead matter being LAC No.1]1A/2008 titled Chandrawati Vs. Un/on of/nd/a, assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at 11,46,670/- per acre. The difference in the destination reached is on I the same reason as noted hereinabove pertaining to the notification dated 15.9.2000 i.e. the learned Land Acquisition Collector adopting the land rate notified by the Government with effect from 1.4.1997 vide • circular dated 25.7.1997 and Il ignoring that the notification in question was issued on 30.7.1998 and the learned Reference • Court granting enhancement @ 11% per annum for the interregnum period. •

7. The Union of India as Well as the land owners have challenged the assessment made by the Learned Reference LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters ~ 0 Court by way of the appeals and cross objections mentioned above.

8. On behalf of the land owners, justifying higher compensation, reliance was placed on the, following documentary evidence:- (a) The rate notified b'the L&DO vide notification dated 16.04.1999 (Exhibit PW-4/1), whereby it disclosed its intention to charge unearned increase in respect of developed residential and commercial properties owned by I L&DO. Relyinci on this document, it was argued that in the year 1999, the rate of residential land in Azadpur, which is stated to • ' be close to village Bhalaswa Jahangir Pun, was fixed at•5830/- per square meter or 2,35,92,400.92 per acre and it was. urged that if 50% is deducted towards development.ccst, the land owners should be entitled to enhance[1] compensation in sum of 1,17,96,200/- per acre. (b). The rate charged by MCD for allotment of commercial plot in Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, in terms of the Resolutior No.705 dated 23.11.1987 •. (Exhibit PW.-3/1), wherby MCD decided to allot developed plots to the 1 transporters © 425/- per square meter and Exhibit PW-3/2, a copy of the Resolution No.610 dated 21.02.2005, whereby MCD decided to allot the plotsl in Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar @ 4,500/- per sqare metre were urged to be material and good evidence. Relying on these LA.App.No. 999/20 10 & connected matters documents, learned cdunsel for the land owners argued that the rate I stated in the resolutions aforenoted, which was 4pplicable for the year 1976, would evidence that fair market value of developed land comes to 17,19,857/- per acre and it was urged that even if 50% deduction is made on account of the development costs, fcr undeveloped lands, fair market value would corie to 8,59,928/- per acre in the year 1976 and incrasing the same by 12% per annum, the fair market value as of 15.9.2000 would be 24,76,592/- per acrel Learned counsel for the land owners also • placed. reliance on the auction record of plots in Rohini Residential Sche+e in the year 1997-98 and 1998-99 (Exhibits PW-8/2 and PW-8/3). While relying on the brochure of DDA pertaining to the year 2006, it was argued that as per the advertisement auctions were held qua flats having plinth area of 69 square metre to 71 square metre in Jahangir Puri at a price ranging between ?23.72, lakh to T28.[4] lakh, which according to learned counsel translates to a price of 14,36,36,363 per acre and counsel urged that • suitable deduction tould be effected therefrom pertaining to undeveloped agricultural land. Relying on a sale deed of village Khera Khurd (Exhibit PW-1511), wherunder land measuring 2-19 bigha was sold @ 32,40,300/- on 25.04.2001, learned counsel urged that the price per acre comes to 56,93,163/- or fl[1],6,169/- per bigha. It was <7/ • contended that this sale deed should be relied upon, • after maktng a reasonable deduction towards development cost to deermine the fair market value of undeveloped agricultural land in village Bhalswa Jahangir Pun. Anothersale deed dated 24.03.2000 • (Exhibit PW-15/2), whreby land measuring. 4-16 big ha situated in the l revenue estate of village Mamurpur was sold to Rdha Swami Satsang Vyas at a price of 26,75,000/- pr acre was also relied upon. (e) ' Learned.counsel fdr the land owners also relied upon an Agreement to Sell (Exhibit P.W-6/1) which was executed by one Shri Khushi Ram in favour of a •, society 'M/s.Butterfly', whereunder land was agreed to be sold on 05.08.1996 @ T18 lakhs per acre. It was urged that the land was in the revenue estate of village Bhalswa jahangir Puri and thus was pressed in aid as good evidence of fair market value of land in the said village as of the date of the agreement to sell i.e. 5.8.1996.

9. • Per contra, Sh.Sanjay,Poddar learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Unionj of India relied on a Sale Deed 'dated 05.06.1996 (Exhibit R-2), whereunder 1-03 bigha of land • in. village Bhalswa Jahan'gir Purl was sold at a price of 1,40,000 and urged, that ever if 12% appreciation per annum is to be given' on said value, the price as on the date of the notification under Section 4 comes to 1,94,782 per bigha, and thus it was argued that since prie of similar land is available in the same village, it would, be imprudent to travel to the adjoining village or to adopt the price of developed Iand for LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected inaters • • fixing the market value of undeveloped• agricultural land having a vast area. Learned counsel also argued that the learned Land Acquisition Cpllector has assessed. the fair market value ofthe land at a price much higher than the one reflected in Exhibit R-2 and so has the learned Reference Court. It may be noted that when judgment was reserved in the above captioned matters on 1191h August, 2011, decision had been reserved for judgment, in a batch of land acquisition appeals, lead matter being LA.App.No.266/2008 titled /a/Sincjh Vs. UQI & Anr, in which simiihr arguments as were advanced with respect to similar evidnce relied upon in the instant appeals and learned senicr counsel ShSanjay Poddar submitted. that in response to the arguments of learned counsel for the land owners the arguments which he had advanced on the earlier occasion may be treated as his response. The topography of vilt4ge Bhalswa Jahangir Purl has come out in the deposition of Shri Trilok Chand (Ha/qa Patwar/ who appeared as PW-2 in LAb N0.112A/2008 titled Rat S/ngh Vs Union of/nd/a in which he has explained the topology of the area while proving the Aks SL'ra Ex.PW-2/1 of village Bhalswa • Jahangir Pun. His testimony v,ould reveal that village Kadipur and Libaspur are situated. in the North, villages Mukhmelpur and Burari are situated in the East, villages Samaipur Badli and Haiderpur are situated in thelVest and villages Bharola and Sarai Pipaithala are situated in the South of: village Jahangir Pu ri. LA.App.No.999/2010 & coimectedmatters \'1 I may additionally note that the lay out plan of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, published by the Government of NCT Delhi wculd reveal that village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri is situated on the eastern side of G.T.Karnal Road i.e. National Highway No.1. Villages Badli, Samaipur, Libaspur, I Khera Kalan, Alipur, Mamoorur (Narela) are on the western side of National Highway No.1. It needs to be highJighted that whatever development took place in the revenue esate of village Jahangir Pun, post acquisition of agricultural lanis in the revenue estate of said village was for re-settlement iof slum and J.J. dwellers i.e. the Character of urbanization in the area was of a kind where potential price increased du to urbanization was of a weak nature. In the decision repo as Amar 5/ngh Vs. Un/on of md/a 1998 (V) AD (Delhi) 481,it was noted that there existed a resettlement colony called Ja1angir Puri in the area which had sprung up during the period of emergency i.e. the year 1975-

76. It has to be remembered hat the two subject acquisitions were also for re-settlement oflum and J.J.Clusters.

14. The decision in LA.App.No.26612008 Ia/ S/ngh Vs. UQI & Anr which was reserved on 12.8.2011 and had yet to be pronounced on 19.8.2011, when instant appeals were reserved fl for judgment, has since been fronounced by me on 23.8.2011 and I.ould highlight that vhiIe assessing the fair market value of the Ian.d situated in 10 revenue estates in the same revenue district i.e. North-West Delhi being revenue estate of villages Pooth Khurd, Shahpur l Garhi, Sanoth, Alipur, Narela, Rajapur Kalan, Holambi Kalan, Khera Khurd, Holambi Khurd and Bawana, I had noted that the topology of the area LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matlers I \\r) constituted a 'V' at the point of intersection where G.T.Karnal Road i.e. NH-i. and Rohtak Road i.e. NH-10 bifurcated at a common point, proceeding in different directions, at Sabzi Mandi. It needs to be highIigted that village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri is outside the 'V' aforesid and as explained hereinabove and abuts towards the east OtIl NH-i.

15. In the appeals relating to the said 10 villages where land were acquired pursuant to different notifications issued from time to time I had dealt with notifications issued in the year 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. In those cases, learned counsel for the land owners had relied upon the sale deed dated 25.04.2001 (Exhibit PW -1 5A[1]) and the sale deed dated 24.03.2000 (Exhibit PW-15/2) i.e. the same sale deeds on which learned counsel for the land owners have placed reliance upon as noted in sub-para (d) of para 8 hereinabove. In the said judgment dated 23.8.2011, I have discarded these two sale deeds for the reasohs recorded in paragraphs 21 to 23 which are reproduced hereunder:-

21. The first argumentis predicated on the 2 sale deeds, Ex.PW-1/3 which is dated 25.3.2000, and the sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 which is dated 25.4.2001. As per the former, fair market value for the former comes to 26.75 lakhs per acre and the latter @ 63.478 lakhs per acre.i The learned Reference • Court has rejected the 2 sale deeds as reliable evidence to determine fair market value of agricultural lands, for alH the villages In question on the reasoning that the isale deed Ex.PW-1/3 was purchased by a religious trust by the name of 'Radha Swami Satsang' and Suraj Bhan PW-6 who had tendered the sale deed in evidence, while deposing in Court in LC No.68/2005 had stated that to his knowledge the land was purchased for religious purpose and was beingused fora religious purpose: The sale ded Ex.PW-1/2 has likewise LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected mattrs been held not to be reliable evidence to determine fair market value of lagricultural lands on the reasoning it was purchased by a Non Government Organization "Christian Organization" and as per the testimony of PW-7 Sister Annie, the secretary of the organization stated that the organization had to • pay the price for, the said piece of land as it was the only plot of the requsite size suitable for the requirement of the organization and is being used for destitute women Ii.e. there was a special circumstance, personal to the vendee.

22. As held in the decisions reported as 1995 (1) 5CC. 717 Land Acquisition Officer Eluru & Ors. Vs. IstiRohini&Anr. (Refed para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC 369 Mohd. Raufuddin L's. Land Acquisition Officer (Refer para 13) sale tansactions evidenced in a sale deed which are tendered in evidence by virtue • of Section 51A of the LJA.Act 1894 have not to be ipso facto treated as an exemplar sale deed to determine the market value of land in an area for the reason there may 11 be special circumstances which have led the buyer to pay a higher price. The true test is the price.wFich a well informed willing •. buyer would pay to an equally well informed seller without being 'influenced by any special circumstances or the fancy to buy a particular piece of land. An informed buyer would be one who has studied the market and has apprised himself of all available land in the area; has understood the topology of the area and the prevailing prices. If a buyer has a fancy for a particular piece of land, he may pay a much higher price and this would not be a good index of fair market value of the lands in the area. I would be failing if I do not highlight that the Union of India had reIied upon the sale deed dated 20.5.2002, which was accepted by the learned 'Reference Court pertainitpg to the notification dated 27.1.2003 where-under agricultural land in village Rajapur Kalan was sold by an 'agriculturist to an agriculturist for a much lesser price i.e. 17,74,109/per acre as against the price which comes to 63.478 lakhs.per acre for Ex.PW-1/2 and 28.89 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/3. The 2 sale deeds LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected rnatt1rs r -•.-----------...--- •'-'---- --''--•.,.-.-'-- - Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3, themselves are having intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price and ex-facie destroy each other.

23. Thus, apart from the reasoning of the learned Reference Court, with vvhich I concur, afore-noted reasons in para 21 albove would be additional reasons to hold that 1 the 2 sale deeds would advisably not be good evidence wherefrom fair market value of subjec lands can be determined and more so for the reaon I find that under various • awards nearly between 7,000 to 8,000 big ha of land have been acquired and when the acquisition is of • such large an area, it vould make all the more a reason to be circumspect on sale deeds having intrinsic evidence of the'transaction being the result of a fancy of the buyer I would be failing not to note an unreported decision cited by learned O counsel Sh.l.S.Dahiya being the decision dated 19.12.2008 disposing of a batch of appeals, lead matter being LA.App.No.19312006 Pratap Singh (sInce deceased) thru IJRs Vs. UQI &. Ors. It was • highlighted that the sale deed therein by which L&T had purchased 8'bigha and 9 biswa of agricultural land for expansion of its factory which had been • ignored bythe learned Reference Court on the ground that L&T had a fancy for the said land and hence the price reflected therein could not be treated as a good evidehce of value of land in the area, was rejected by I the Court and the price in • question, with suitable dduction on account of the parcel of land being lage, was accepted by the Court and thus even in the instant cases the 2 sale O deeds in question i.e. Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 should be treated as the basis to determine fair • market value. The argument ignores the reasoning in the decision of the Di'1ision Bench in paras 37 to 38 wherein the Division Bench, did not accept the value in the sale deed or its own logic as indicative of the market value, bit found that if the price therein was reduced by 1/3rd the price arrived at would be the same as would be price arrived at with reference to the average rate of the sale deeds produced by the Union of India i.e. the sale deeds LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected mattes produced by the Government were giving a price of 1,37,000/- per bigha and the sale deed under which L&T had purchaspd the land gave the price 3,26,600/- per bigha arfid the average would come to 2,31,800/- which was near about the price of 2,15,160/- per bigha, if 1/3rd would be deducted from the sum of 3,26,600/-. It may further be highlighted that in the said judgment the year of the sale was 1993 and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was dated 24.7.1995 and 16.11.1995and the Court determined fair, market \f'alue as of the said dates at the same sum arrivd at as aforesaid i.e. 2,15,160/-.. In other v\ords, the reasoning of the Division Bench is not to be read pedantically but meaningfully. It is not Ithat the Court treated the sale deed in question as the basis for if it was so,. the appreciation for 2 years had required to be given. I would highlight once again, that I have hereinbefore already noted the inherent •.. contradiction in the vaftie of the land price as per the 2 sale deeds and this itself is intrinsic mutually destructive evidence of the 2 sale deeds reflecting fair market value." For the reasons therein,I 'reject these two sale deeds in the present case also as rieliable and good evidence to determine fair market valuell of agricultural land in village Bhalswa Jahangir Pun. As regards the agreement to sell (Exhibit PW-6/1), the • land situated in village BhalsvMa Jahangir Pun, has been agreed to be transferred for a sum of T18 Iakhs per acre. The land owners have also relied uron another sale deed dated 01.07.2003 whereunder 4-16 bigha i.e. 1 acre land was sold at 15,70,000/-., Now, if the.price., as per the own showing of the land owners was 15,70,000/- per acre as on 01.07.2003, it is \tf LA.App.No.999/2010 & cOnnected mattdrs difficult to comprehend the abnormally high value as per Ex.PW-6/1 which is dated 8.[4] 1996 in which the stated price is 18 lakhs per acre. It is indeed a puzzle that in 1996 the price was Z18 lakhs per acre and 7 years down the line the price fell to Z15.[7] lakhs per acre. I ned to highlight that in paragraph 39 of its decision, the Iarned Reference Court, while examining Ex.PW-6/1 has opned that the said price was for special considerations and not the price settled between an informed willing buyer and I an informed willing seller and without being influenced by special needs pertaining to a particular land, and had thusl discarded the said sale deed as not reliable evidence wherefrom fair market value of a large • track of land had to be fixed. I have discussed this issue in my decision dated 23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 Ia! S!ncjh Vs. UO/ & Anr i.e. where an abnormally high price for a parcel of land is with evidence of neither the buyer nor the seller being wellinformed and there being a special feature qua the land and have held the same not to be good evidence to determine fair market value of a large part of land, being the fanciful price paid by a buyer smitten withfancy, which observations have already been extracted by me hereinabove i.e. paras 22 and • 23 of the said decision; I reiterate the same. As regards auction rates of developed plot of land situated in the Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, I do not find any substance in the arguments of the learned counsel for the • land owners and concur with the decision of the learned • Reference Court contained in faragraphs 29 and 30 which are premised on the decision of the Supreme Court reported as j/ Chand Vs. Union of India 2009 (15) SCC 769. Similar is the reasoning pertaining to the eiidence relating to auction rates of residential plots or flats by pDA.

21. In my decision dated 2.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 Ia! Sincih Vs. UOI & Ors., I hd extensively discussed the law declared by the Supreme qourt in La! Chancis case with reference to price at which qeveloped plots were allotted by different agencies i.e. DDA and DSIDC. Relevant observations and findings in para 29 to 31 of the decision in Ia! Singh's case are extracted hereunder:- Now, we do not have evidence as to what was the extent of plotted larid sold by DSJDC or DDA with reference to the Bawana Industrial Estate developed by DSIDC and Narela Residential Scheme developed by DDA. Whether it was20% or 75%, we do not know. The inchoate evidencel has resulted in the same factors, being 3 in number which were noted by the Supreme Court in La! Chands case (supra), which render this evidence as Imost unreliable to determine the value of land in the sbject cases. It is no doubt true, as held even by the learned Reference Court, that with the development of Bawana Industrial Area Rohini Residential Scheme and Narela Residential Sheme, the subject lands had acquired a building ptentiaIity, but the question would be what would libe the value to which the • building potentiality would translate itself. I hold that the learthed Reference Court, keeping in view the observation and the findings of the Supreme Court in La! Chancis case (supra) has rightly rejected said evidence reliable. On the issue of • potentiality relating itself to the value, I promise the reader of the decision, to deal with the same while I shall be discussing as to what should be the fair market value of the lands•. LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected rnattrs

22. Highlighting that in La! Chancis case (supra) the Supreme Court held that such raw data was meaningless and was too inchoate wherefroiin fair market value could be crystallized. 23; I reiterate the reasoningl to hold that price at which MCD allotted developed plots in Sajay Gandhi Transport Nagar and price at which DDA sold developed plots and flats would be irrelevant to determine fair market value of agricultural land. Pertaining to price notified by L&DO for charging unearned increase when lease-hold property under L&DO is transferred by the perpetual lessee, suffice would it be to state that the same relates to dev4loped plots and on the parity of • reasoning in La! Chancfs case (supra) wherein this kind of evidence was specifically thscussed and discarded with • reference to village Rithala where lands were acquired for Rohini Residential Scheme, I degate the plea for compensation to be e.nhanced with reference to L&DO rates noting that I am concerned with large tracks of lands ad-measuring 758.01 bigha and 929.05 bigha. From the topology of the area and as per the testimony of Trilok Chand (Halka Patwari) who appeared as PW-2 in LAG No.112A!2008 it emerges that village Burari is on the east of • • village. Bhalswa Jahangir Puri and indeed the p.lan for Delhi would reveal that the two villages i.e. Bhalswa Jahangir Pun and Burari are separated by the outer ring road as we trvel towards Mubarka Chowk frOm the Tibetan Re-settlement colony adjoining the famous Gurudwara Majnu Ka Tila. The two are adjoining villages seprated by 'Outer Ring Road' and LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected mattrs... thus the fair market value oil land on a particular date in the two villages would be comparple.

26. While assessing the fair Imarket value of the land situated in village Burari, Which was acquired pursuant to notifications dated 24.07.1998 and 18.07 2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition. Act, I nad considered the material on record i.e. the eiidence in my decision pronounced on 7.6.2011 in a batch of LA.4ppeals, lead matter being L.A. Appeal No.971/2008 titled R9/ba/ & Ors. Vs. Union of/nd/a & Ors. In the said decision, I had assessed the fair market value of agricultural land at Z11,6011580.82 per acre for Category A land, 10,44,522.73 per adre for Category B land and 9,28,464.65 per acre for Category C land pertaining to the notification dated 24.7.1998. The land acquired pursuant to notification dated 18.07.2003 had been assessed by me at 19,20,568/- per acre for Category A land and 17,28,512/-. per acre for Category Bland. iH./ai Sincjh's case. (supra), I had assessed the fair market valu of land in 10 villages as under:- S.No. Village Name Date of Notification Fair market underSection 4 value (in lakhs per acre) Pooth Khurd 7.8.12000.. 14.75 for Category 'A' 14.3728 for Category 'B' Holambi Kalan 7.8.2000 14.75 Bawana 7.8.2000 T14.75 for 14.38125 for

4 Khera Khurd 11.9.2000 Z14.835 for,Category 'A' 14.46413 for. Narela 2..2001 T16.165 for CategOry 'A' 15.76087 for Holambi Kalan 22 8.2001 16.745 for 16.43811 for 7... Alipur 22.8.2001 T16.745 for Holambi Khurd 22i[8].2001 T 16.745 for Rajapur Kalan 22.8.2001 Z16.745 for I Category 'A' Sanoth 7.12.2001 T17.295 11.[1] Shahpur Garhi 16.5.2002 T18.655 12, Shahpur Garhi 23.5.2002 Z18.655 Holambi Kalan 23.5.2002 Z18.655. Alipur 23.5.2002 T18.655 Sanoth 27.1.2003 Z19.435 for 18.94912 for 18.47539 for Category 'C' Rajapur Kalan 27.1.2003 Z19.435 for 18.94912 for 18.47539 for Category 'C' 27.' In fat S/ncjh's case (supra) I had also analyzed the minimum land rates enhanced by the Government from time to timeand found the same Inot to be the iose d/x/tof the. Government officers and had found not only rationale but a reflection of urbanization iinpacting such increase. With reference to the decisions Of four Division Benches of this Court reported as 2006 IV AE Delhi 13 Galra! 5/ngh Vs. £101 & Anr., 2004 IV AD Delhi 20 Thm Chander Vs. £101, 111 (2004) DLT 95 Hukum Singh Vs. £10! and an unreported decision in LA.App.No.866/2005 Mahend'r S/ncjh Vs. £101 & Ors. decided on 11.5.2006 wherein based 4)11 sale deeds and other evidence land price was determined on various dates between the years 1993 to 1996 and in relation to the minimum price fixed by the Government I had highlighteJ in paras 50 to 53 of the said decision as under:- "50. The aforesaid judments noted in the preceding paragraphs as also the iarious notifications issued from time to time by the Goiernment of NCT Delhi notifying minimum price for agricthltural lands in Delhi as tabulated by me in para 7 above bring out two very important facts. relevant to determine fhe growth/rise in the prices of agricultural land in Delhi over the years commencing from the year 1990. As i of 27.4.1990 minimum price was

4.65 lakhs per acre which rose to T10 lakhs per acre as of 1.4.1997 i.e. the incrase is T[5].35 lakhs spread over 7 years which gives us a 115.054% increase in 7 years and the average price increae would be 16.436%. The price rise over the next 1 year is by 11.2% and thereafter by 11% for the next 2 years and 11.5% for the next year i.e. as of 1.4.2001. It shows that due to urbanization, between the year 19.9q and 1997 prices grows fairly sharply and good corroborative evidence for this would be the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Ga/rats case (supra), wljich I have discussed in para 49 above.