Union of India v. Surinder Singh & Ors

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?,,,

3. Whether the judgment should be reported.in the Digest? ',: PRADEEP NANDRAIOG. I.

1. 1proceed with an apology to the reader by referring to a notification issued later in point of tihie and' then to a notification issued prior-in point of.time; but the reason is that' the learned counsel for,, the land owners had addressed arguments with respect to the notification issued-later and had required price to be suitably reduced pertaining to the notification which was issued earlier in point oftime. -

2. Land measuring 758-01 bigha situated in the revenue, estate of village Bhalswa jahangir Purl was acquired pursuant • LA.App.No.999/201d&connected matters • j^age2of22 I.:tG a notification dated 15v09.20Q0 •issued^ under'Section 4 of ^, the Land: Acquisition Act 1894,'for a public purpose,.namelyi,., 'Rehabilitatian ofJJ CIiister'. This^was followed ty a dlclaratioil ^, junder SectiDh 6 of the said ^Act issuefi on 17.04.2001. After ' foltowing the -due process, the Land.Acquisition.Collector. • announced his award bearing No.6/2002-03 dated 20.04.2002>. whereby he assessed the fair market value;of the acquired' Viand at •?2,87,916;66 per bigha, which is equivalent to ?13.82' lakhs per acre i.e. fair market value as of 15.09.2000 was fixed.at ?13.82 lakhs per acre.. '.. v

3. Dissatisfied with the assessment made by the Land:; ^. Acquisition Goilector, the land owners sought reference under / Section; 18 of the said Act. The Learned Reference-Court, in: ^ the lead matter, being LAC No.11:2A/2008 titled Rai Sinah Vs..•Union of India. \hssess&6 the fair market v^lue pf 1}he;/.acq6iredi ' land at ?3,0.3,;534 perbigha orm,56,9.63'per acre;, k; 4;, It needs to be highlighted that both i.e. the learned Land •• • Acquisition Co)lectoras well as the Learned Reference Count,.while assessing/the fair market value of the, acquired lahd;,.' '.' adopted the miramum price for agricultural lahd.fixe^ by the '•,, Government as on 01.04;2000, ^'notified vide\Circular dated, ^ 11.09.2011. Different destinations were reached inasmuch as.the iearheid Land.Acquisition Collector,, while-\assessihg the.compensatiOT did not grant a.pi5reciatipn for the-period from:.01.04.2000 •till,rthe'date. notificatibn, under Section.[4] of the Land Acq;Uisition „Act' was issued on,15.09)200,0,1but th^' ^learned: Reference Court granted appreciation fdr^the said, period of 165 days 12% per a.hnu,'m with reference to the • base date 1.4.2000 and the price ?13;82 lakhs p^r acre.' • ' / ' • LAApp.No.999/2010. &connected matters;• ',:, Page 3.of22.

5. Another parcel of land xad-m^easuring 929^05 bigha,.: • situated in the/same revenue estat^ Vof village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri was acquired pursuant to a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, dated 30.07.199&, fbr the same public purpose i.e. 'Rehabilitation of JJ Cluster'. This was followed by a declaration under Stoioni 6 of the Act issued on 04.08.1998. After followirig the dueT,\ 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 t[2],33,333 per. bigha.which is equivalent to fll;20lial<hs per acre.:' ' •; ' • • •,- ' / ' ' • ^:. 6. dissatisfied.with the \assessn.3ent' made by -^Xhe Land. ^. Acquisition Cdllector, the land owners sought reference undei" Section 18 of the Act. l^he Learned JRefererice Court, ^in the •, lead,matter being LAC ^0.111^^2008 titled: Uh/dn o^/nc/h, assessed the fair market value •of:the'acquired •: \;iand at ?11„46^670/- per acre Jhe/ difference;in the ',destination.reached, is on the same reason is noted ^ • •: hereinab'ove pertaining to,the notification.dated 15.9.2000 i.e. the learned; Land Acquisition Collector-adopting the -iahd rat0:.. • notified by the Government with effect from 14,1997 vjde circular dated 25:7.1997 and ignoring: that tK^ notifitatibri in ' question was issued on 30:7.199& and^the learned Reference' •:' • Court granting enhanGement-11% per annum • interregnum period.' ' •,; ' • ' 7, The Union of India as well as the land owners haye; challenged the assessment made by the:Learned Reference ".LA.App.NQ.999/2010 &comectedmatters;; Page 4of22 ~ •' Court by way of the appeajs and cross objections rnentioned^,.. ' above... " ' V ''

8. On. behalf of the land,, owners, justifying higher;Conipens:ation, reliance, was -placed:. on.. the •; ToNowiiig-; ' ' docunnentary evidence:-' y f • (a? Jh;e rate notified by thfe L:&DO vide^notificatibn.dated 16.04.1999 (Exhibit PW-4/1), whereby it •.... displdsed its intention to charge unearned increase in;,.respect of.developed residential and. commerGial-, '; V • properties owned' by, L&DO. • Relying on-' this - 7: docLiiment, Jt, was argued that in';th.e. y^ar 19^^ •.v r •;.rate df residential land in Azadpur, which ls stated'to- ^ \ ' be close to village Bhalaswa Jahahgir Puri',.'was jfixeid at t583Q/- per scfuar^ meter dr"t235,92;400:^fcper '! - /. acre and it/was urged that if; 50% is deducted: • towards developrinent cost, the land, owners should.; be entitled to. enhanced 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 Resolution No.705 dated 23.11.1987; (Exhibit PW-3/1), whereby MCD,,decided to aliot:; developed plots to the transporters (3) ^425^^:per '; square meter and Bchibit PW-3/2, a cdpy of the >•:/ Resolution.No41C)'dated 21.02,2005,/whereby MCD/ •, decided to, allot the plots, in Sanjay GahdM Transpb;.., Nagar @?4,500/- per square metre were urged to be material and good.evidence., Relying on:th.iese, ••LA.App,No.99$/2010 &. coimecte^ • Page 5of22'; documents, leamed' counsel for. the land owners. argued 'that the. rate' stated^ in/the;resolutions. afqrehoted:,^which'was apR%^ year 1976,, /, wpulx^ evipleriGe that-faFir market value of developed land comes to -tl[7],19;;857/- per acre and it wa$ Lirged.;: • that, even if 50% deduction is made on account 0:f the • •.development costs, for undeveloped lands, fair market value.would coitie to; ^8>59;928/-:per;adre in: • the. year 1976 and increasing the same by 12% per./ •annum, the fair market vglue as of 15.9.2000 wbuld ?24,76,592/-per acre.; \ - (c) Learned counsej for the^ land, owners,^also.placei reliance on the auction: record of plots in Rahinj; Residential Scheme in the year 1997-98;and, 1998-99- (Exhibits PW-8/2: and PW-8/3). While relying on the brochure of PDA pertaining to the year 2006, it was argued that as per the advertisement auctions. were held/qua flats having plmth:area of'69 scftjare. irhetre to 71 square metre in Jahangir Purl at a price •. racing between'^23.[7] lakh-to-^28.[4] lakh, which. ';. according to, learned counsel translates to- a jDrice of. ^14,36,36,363' per acre and Go:unsel urged that;;, suitable deduction could be; effected therefrom •, * pertaining to. undeveloped/agricultural land.. • (d)^ Relying pn a saLe deed of village Khera:;.k^^ (.Exhibit PVy-l,5/l); whereunder land measuring 2-19,'. bi^^ha was sold @,,^32,40,300/- on: 25.04.20:01,; learned counsel urged that the price per acre cpimes..: > • to ?56,93,163/- or^ll,86,169/- per bigha. It;was ' - LAApp.N6^99/2010 &coimected matters •.. ' Pige 6of22. V- • ' ' cantended that this Sale deed slidiiid be\relied,ui3bn, -;, • ' • after,making. a. reasonable /deduction,;.towards development:^ost to deteipihe the fair rharket-yaiue; ^ of undeveloped agricultural, land in viHage Bhalswa Jahangir Puri. Another-sale deed dated •24.03,2000 (Exhibit PW-15/2), whereby land measuring:• 4-16 bigha situated in the. revenue estate: Of village \ • Mamurpur was sold to Radha Swami Satsang vi^as at a price of ?2;6,75,000/r per acre Was also relied upon, r (e) Learned,counsel for the land owners also relied,:;. upon an Agreement to Sell (Exhibit PW-e/i) yvhkh was •: - ^ executed by one Shri Khushi Ram in favour,of a society'l\/i/svButterfly.\ whereunder land,vyas;agreed to •.. be:sold on,05.08.1996.(3) m lakhs per acre. ^1^^ • urged that, the viand was in. the revenue estate of village Bhalswa jahahgir Purl and thus was pressed In.•, •ai,d as good'evidence of fair, market value of (and in z-. • the, said villa:ge as of, the date of the. agreementytb sell. '• ';i.e'. 5.8.1996.:

9. Per contra,..Sh.Sanjay Poddar learned senior cbunsel •;;; appearing;o.n,; behalf, of Uhipn of India relied jon a Sale Deei ^^ dated 05.06.1:696 (Exhibit R-2,), whereunder 1^03 fcrigha of landin village Bhalswa Jahangir Purl..was sold; at a,price of' ^1,40,000 and urged that even if 12% appreciation per arinum / ' is to.be given on said'vaiue;vthe.price, as on^he dale of th^., ^• notification under Section 4 comes'to;?1,94,782 per bigha, and:.thus it was argued that since price of similar land is available'.in the sahie village, it would be.imprudent.to travel to thd v; adjoining village or to adopt the price of developed land for'. LA.App.No.999/2040&connected matters Pftge 7bf2i ' fixing the marl<et value of undeveloped agricuttural land liaving a vast area. Learned counsel, also argued that the learned Land Acquisition Collector has assessed the fair market value of the jand. at a price much higher than the one reflected in Exhibit R-2 and so. has the learned Reference Court. /; • -I •;; V 10., jt; rriay be noted that,when judgnrient was reserved mthe above 'captioned matters on.19^'' August, 2011, decision had been reserved for judgment in a batch, of land acquisition. appeals;, lead matter being LA.App,Np.266/2008 titled ya/Sinqb 1/9. UOI &Ann in which similar argunrients as were advanced with respect to similar evidence relied upon; in. the instant appeals ari'd learned senior.couhsei Sh-.-Sahjay 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. • -,

11. The topography of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri has come out in the deposition of Shri Trildk Chand [HaJqa Patwan) who appeared as. PW,-2 in U\C No.ll2A/2008, titled;/?^/ Sinqh Vc;.Union ofIndian which he has explained the topology of the area while proving the Aks Sizra Ex.PW-2/1 of village BhalsWa Jahangir Puri. His testimony would reveal that village Kadipur and Libaspur are situated, in the North, villages Mukhmelpur and Burari are situated in the East, villages Samaipuf Badli and Haiderpur are situated in the West and villages Bharola and Sarai Pipalthala are situated in the Sigtb.pf vill^^ Jahangir Puri^ •;•....••• LA.App.No.999/2010 & coimected matters.. 12. 1 may additionally note tlnat ^'the lay 'but ^.plan of the. /:.Wationai Capital Territory. of;, Delhi,. published' 'by th^e..;: Governnient of NCT Delhi woLjld reveal that village Bhalswa ' V: I /^^lahangir Puri,is situated on G.T.Karnal Road ^i ' ^e- Natibnal Highway;^ Samaipiun:AaspuK. \, Khera Kalan Aiipur;, Marniporpur (Narela) are/on.the western:;. ^ ' i. IK.. '. ^. ^3.. It ne.eds to. be;highjighted •that 'Whatever devefopnieht.'\.: ' took place in the revenue estate of village Jahangir Puri, post acquisition of agricultural lands ijn th'e revenue estafe of said'--.. •:vi|lage was for. re-settlement of slum:•ahd J-.J., dwellers J.e. the, 'V., ' • character,of urbanization in the, area was oi' a.kind where..,: potential price increased.due to urbanization was' of a weak, nature.In the decision reported.a^ Amar Sinah Vs} Union of.., india l99B (V) AD (Delhi) ^81, it was noted that' there existed a,. resettlenhent colony called Jahangir Puri in the area Which had. ^ sprung up during the period of emergency i.e. the year 1975-.

76. It has to be remembered that the two subject acquisitions:,. K... were also for re-settlement of slum and J.J.CIusters.: '14. Th^ decision in: LA.App.No.266/2Q08 iai Sindii Vs. UOi £;, Mn. which was reserved: on 12.8.2011^ and had yet to b€ V.. pronounced on 19.8.2011, when instant;appeals were reserved' ', - forjudgment, has since been pronounced by me on, 2*3.8.2011; •':-,::and r)^dulcl. highHght that while\assessing the.feir rnarket/v^^.-V •: value of the land 'situated In 10, revenue, esitates ill the same- - ^ revenue ^district i.e. North-West Delhi being revenue,instate.cyf ' •;:., Kvillages Pooth.Khurd,;Shahpur Garhi> Sanoth,^;^^^^ /;:M Khera i<hurd, Hol^mbi Khurd, and ^Bawana,, 1;, had.; noted 'thatthe. topology Of the ' areaV.',. LA.App.No;999/20aQ&co^, Page 9of2l ': y.cbn'stituted a 'y'^at the point of intersection where G.T.Karnai. Road i.,e. and Rohta'k Road,i;e/ NH-10 bifurcated at,.a „Vcpn-imoh point,, proceeding in;^Jfferent^ di;hections, -at^ SalDzi - •' •Mandi. •It needs to be^highlighted that village Bhaiswa Jahang'ir ' Puri is outside the 'V aforesaid and as explained hereihabp^^ and abuts towards:the east of NH-1., •15. In the appeals relatihg- 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 2Q00, 2001, 2002 and 2003. In those cases, learned counsel. for the land owners had relied upon' the sale.d^ed dated,.,25.04.2001 (Exhibit PW-lS/i) and the sale deed.dated; 24.03.2000- (Exhibit PW-15/2) i.e. the,,same safe deeds on, Which learned counsel for the,, land owners have "placed, reliance, upon as noted in sub-para (d) of pgra 8 hereinabove..; In the said, judgment dated 23.8.2011, I have dlscarGied these,two-sale, deeds for the reasons recdrded in 'paragraj3hs,21 to • '2,[3] which are reproduced hereunder:- v; ' ', 21; The first argument is predicated on the. 2^sale - -r.; deeds, Ex.PW-1/3 which is dated 2:5.3.2000,. ihd'the. • sale deed, Ex.PW-1/2 which is dated 25.4.200Lk As ^; ' M p^r: the former, fair market value for the •formef ^ 'k; comes to ^26J[5] lakhs per acre and th;6 latter (S: '; • ^63.478 lakhs per acf-e. The jearned--Reference -, Co;urt-.has. rejected the 2 sale..deeds as>reliabie ^ ";.evidence, to. deternime fair; market. vajue; Of;•: agricultural: lands, for all the villages In, G|Uestid;h, on ^ -, the reasdning that' the sale d'eed Ex.PW-1^3. was •'. / • purchased by a religious trust by the: naiTie,of •, 'Radha Swami Sstsang' and Suraj fihan:PW-6 who.. ':: had tendered the.sale deed.in;^idence,l while ^ deposing. in:Court in LAG I\l.o.68/i^5 had stated / that to his.knowledge the'land wa&^pu^cha^ed• for religious purpose and was being used:forra religious purpose... the sale deed '^Ex.P\/V-l/2 h^s likewise ^ ^ LA.App.No.999/2010 &'connected matters • Page lO o'f22, \ ' L bden held not tp be reliable evidence to deteririihe fair market value, of agriculturd) Jands on' the reasoning, it was purchased by a Tsion Government Organization "Ghristian, 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 a^ it was the, •, only plot, of the requisite size suitable, for; the - requirement of the organization and 'i^ being;used for destitute women i.e. there was,a special circumstance, perspnal to the vendee..; 22.. As held in the decisions reported: as 1995 (1) 5CG. 717 Land Acquisition Officer. Eturii & Qrs. Vs. - • tstiRohini &Anr. (Refer para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC ^ V 369 jviohd., Ra'ufuddin i/s: Land AcnuisitionkSmcPt •. 'j- {Refer para 13) sale transactions evidenced/in a saje deed which are,tendered in evidence by virtue. of Section 51A of the L.A.Act 1894 have not to be, ipso facto treated as an exemplar sale deed to determine the rharket value of |and in an area for -.'J!,, the reason there' may be special circumstances • which have lied the buyer to'pay a higher price. •The. true test, is the price which- a yyeH informed wrlling. "buyer would pay to an equally::well informed, seller;,, without -' being; influenced.b^^; any, splciai. circumstances orthe 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 hig.her price and this would not be •/ a good index of fair market value ofthe lands in the. area. 1would be failing if I do not highlight that the Union of India had relied upon the sale deed dated " 20.5.2002, which was accepted by the learned Reference Court pertaining 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 ?.63i478 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/2 and ?28 89, lakhs per acre,for Ek.RW-1/3.,The 2 sale deeds LA.App.No.999/2010 &connectedmatters 'i Page 11 of22 '.. f-; -• -. '. '. /' • j_:_ {• _Ex^PW-1/2 and Ex>W-1/3, themselves- a having intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price ^nd ex-facie destroy.each other.,

23. thusv apart from the reasoning of the learned •_ Reference Court, with whi:Ch-1 cdricur,::afore-noted reasons in- para 21 above would be additibnal r^sons to hold that the 2 sale deeds: would advisably:not be good evidence: Wherefrdm vfair • market valu^ of su;bject lands:can be.determined and more so for.the reason,.!: find'tlnat under varibus awarcte nearly between 7,000 to 8,000 bjfihatof land •^:t when the acqui&^ is of 5uch large,an area, it would make.alTthe more a re|son to be circumspect on,.sale deeds ^having ' intrinsic evidence of the transaction being, th^ result of a fancy of the 'buyer. I would be failing: not to,,,:nol^:/an,;inre|Dorte^ idecision. cited,by learned ^ being the:decisi%:; dated •:19^-20O& disposing,of a;batch Df appSli lead matter:^being LA.App.No.193/2006 PralM-i Sinnh.. thru !.\/s. Qqi kl. highlighted that th^ sale deed therein by:#^ L&T ^ and -g bisyyg Qj: agricultural land for expansion of its factory which ^had been. ignorejl by the learned Reference Court: dn 'the ground ^at L&T had a fancy: for thfe said;land:dWd hence the price: reflected therein could/not; be,' treated as a good evidence of value of land in the area was rejected by the Court and the price, in,: question, with suitable deduction on account of the parcel of land being large, was accepted by the court and thus even in the Instant cases the 2 sale deeds in question i;e. Ex.PW-1/2 and:e^.PW-;1/3. should be treated. as the basis to determine fair ignores the reasoning in the decision of the Division Beinch in paras 37 to 38 wherein the pivision Bench," did hot accept the. value in the sale deed on its own logic as: Indicative - of the market value, but found that if tfe price.:,ther^rr was reduced,by 1/3^ the price afrivediat would be the same as, would be price arrived at with:, refetence to. the average rate of the. safe deeds produced, by.the:Union;0f India i.e. the salevdeeds Iv >•: '. V >. r, • J';<.:'LA.App.N.o'.;999/2010: &cormected,matters Page 12 of2^: produced by the Government were.giving a price of ^1,37,000/- per bigha and the sale deed under •. which L&T had purchased the jand gave the price ?3,26,600/-per bigha and the average would come to ?2,31,800/- which was near about tjie price of^ ' ^2,15,160/- per bigha, if 1/3'^'^ would be deducted.., •; from the sum of ^3,2.6,600/-. 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 16.11.1995 and the • Court determined fair market value as of the said dates at the same sum arrived at as aforesaid i.e. - ^2,15,160/-. in other words, the reasoning of the Division Bench is not to be read pedantically but nneaningfully. It is not that 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 value 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."., '

16. For the reasons therein, I reject these two sble deeds in the present case also as reliable and good evidence to determine fair, market value of. agricultural land in village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri.,

17. As regards the agreement to sell-(Exhibit PW-6/1), the land situated in village Bhalswa jahangir Puri has been agreed to be transferred for a sum of.ns lakhs per acre. The land owners have also relied upon another sale, deed dated 01.07.2003 whereunder 4-16 bigha i.e.. 1 acre (and was sold at ^5,70,000/-..,., \;

18. Now, if the'price, as per the own, showing of the land.owners, was n[5];70,000/- per acre as.on 01:;07i2d.03, •it is LA.App.No.999/2010 &connected matters. '• Page 13 of22. difficult to 'comp the ati.norrnally high \^a:iue as per' •: Ex..PW-6/l which: is dated 8.4.1996 in which the stated price' is tl[8] lakhs per acre. It is Indeedva puzfle that in 1995 the priie ' was flB lakhs peracre and 7 years down,the:lihe the price fell to ?15.[7] lakhs per acre. I need to highlight that in ^paragraph 39 of its decision, 'the, learned •Reference Court,.-while exaniinihg Ex.PW-6/l has opined that the said price was for speciar considerations and'not the price settled;-between ari ^ informed wlHing buyer and an.informed willing seller and,..without being influenced special needs:pertaining to^^^^^ a particuiar land, and had: thus discarded the said iale deed as. •. not reliable, evidence wherefrom^ fair rharket, value of a large.; track of^Iand had to be fixed.. • •: • / 19.. I have discussed, this issue In my decision dated V 23.8.2011 In L2A,.At3p.No.266/2008Sinoh Anr \^ •. 'W^ an abnormally high price for a. parceT of;lahd is with ' •.evidence of neither; the ^uyer. nor 'the 'seiler: b^ informed and, there, being a special feature qua the;,land an^ • 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 with fancy, which obiseryatipns have,. • -already been extraded by me herelna:bQve 1:.e^paras 22 and ^ ^'.23/c)f th.e said,decision. I reiterate the same. ' V' \ '

20. As regards auction rates of develbped plot' of land situated in the Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagaf,:,:| db not,fin|ii:,:, any substance in the a^rguments of the learnedicpunsel for tHe ' j ' land owners and concur with the decision,of th^ learned' Reference Court contained in paragraphs 29 and 3:0 Which are. premised bri the decision of the Supreme Court reported as Lai LA.App.Np.999/2010 & connected matters; Chand I/5. Union of India (15) SCC 769.'^ Similar is the reasoning pertaiining to the evidence relating-^^ auetidh rat^s / ofresidential plots orflats by-DDAr ' ' -V '' yZI. In:my decision dated 23;8.20il in LA.App.to, fai Singh Vs. UOi &Ors., I had extensively discussed the law declared; by the Supreme Court in case with; ' reference to pri^e at which developed plots were allotted by ^different agencies i.e. DDA and DSIDC. Relevant observations and; findings in para 29 to.3.[1] of the decision ir(,/a/^^7^'s case are extracted hereunder:-; -i.. 25, Now, we do not have evidence as to what was the extent of plotted land sold by DSIDC or toDA with •- ^. reference to.the Bawana Industrial Estate developed • by.