Full Text
Translation output
I
7/ $-318 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
RFA 663/2002
JEET RAM Appellant
Through: Mr.V.P.Rana, Advocate.
7/ $-318 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
RFA 663/2002
JEET RAM Appellant
Through: Mr.V.P.Rana, Advocate.
VERSUS
UOl & ORS. . Respondents
Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocate for UOl.
Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocate for UOl.
RFA 225/2002
MEER SINGH Appellant
Through: Mr.V.P.Rana, Advocate.
MEER SINGH Appellant
Through: Mr.V.P.Rana, Advocate.
VERSUS
U.O.l. & ANR. Respondents 224.
LA.APP 112/2007
VIJAY KU MAR GUPTA Appellant
Through: Mr.Rakesh Khanna, Sr.Advocate with Mr.V.K.Singh, Advocate.
VIJAY KU MAR GUPTA Appellant
Through: Mr.Rakesh Khanna, Sr.Advocate with Mr.V.K.Singh, Advocate.
VERSUS
U.O.I & ORS .....Respondents RFA No.663/02, 225/02, 112/07, 114/07 & 115/07
2011:DHC:13530 I 12-- Mr.M.K.Singh, Advocate for
DDA
2011:DHC:13530 I 12-- Mr.M.K.Singh, Advocate for
DDA
LA.APP. 114/2007
RENU GUPTA .....Appellant
RENU GUPTA .....Appellant
VERSUS
U.O.l & ORS . .....Respondents Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate for
R-2.
R-2.
LA.APP. 115/2007
POONAM GUPTA .....Appellant
POONAM GUPTA .....Appellant
VERSUS
U.O.l & ORS . ......Respondents Mr.M.K.Singh, Advocate for
DDA
Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate for R-3.
RFA No.663/02, 225/02, 112/07, 114/07 & 115/07 Page 2of6
DDA
Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate for R-3.
RFA No.663/02, 225/02, 112/07, 114/07 & 115/07 Page 2of6
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
12.08.2011 Pertaining to a notification dated 19th March 1993 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisiton Act 1894, for agricultural lands in village Narela, which are the subject matter in the above captioned appeals, the fair market value determined by the learned Reference Court in the References which are the subject matter of LA.APP.No.112/2007, LA.APP.No.114/2007 and
LA.APP.N.115/2007, for Category 'A' lands is Z4.65 lakhs per acre and for Category 'B' lands Z3.45 lakhs per acre. As against that, the learned Reference Court which decided the References which are subject matter of challenge in RFA No.225/2002 and
RFA No.663/2002, determined fair market value for category 'A' lands at 1,30,523/- per bigha which equals to 6,27,600/- per acre.
For the same notification, pertaining to an adjoining village i.e. Singhola, in the
12.08.2011 Pertaining to a notification dated 19th March 1993 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisiton Act 1894, for agricultural lands in village Narela, which are the subject matter in the above captioned appeals, the fair market value determined by the learned Reference Court in the References which are the subject matter of LA.APP.No.112/2007, LA.APP.No.114/2007 and
LA.APP.N.115/2007, for Category 'A' lands is Z4.65 lakhs per acre and for Category 'B' lands Z3.45 lakhs per acre. As against that, the learned Reference Court which decided the References which are subject matter of challenge in RFA No.225/2002 and
RFA No.663/2002, determined fair market value for category 'A' lands at 1,30,523/- per bigha which equals to 6,27,600/- per acre.
For the same notification, pertaining to an adjoining village i.e. Singhola, in the
ORDER
reported as 2004 (4) AD (Delhi) 20
Ram Ciiander v. Un/on of/nd/a for Category 'A' land, the fair market value assessed is 1,30,523/- per bigha which comes to
6,27,600/- per acre.
I may note that land in village Singhola did not have any depressions or pits and thus lands in said village were not categorized into 2 categories as has been done for the agricultural lands in village Narela. In said village level land has been put in category 'A' and those lands which had depressions
7-3 or pits or where earth was removed have been classified in category 'B'.
Thus, there is no scope to enhance the compensation as regards RFA No.225/2002 and RFA No.663/2002 for the reason the appellants therein have been awarded compensation
@6,27,600/- per acre i.e. 1,30,523/- per bigha which is the same as was awarded by the Division Bench in Ram Chander's case (supra). However, since the learned Reference Court has not directed that on the enhanced compensation benefit of the judgment reported as 93 (2001) DLT 569 Sunder vs. UQI would be given, the said 2 appeals stand disposed of maintaining the compensation awarded but decreeing that on the enhanced compensation the appellants would be entitled to the benefit of the judgment reported as93 (2001) DLT 569 Sunder vs. UQI. No order as to costs in the said appeals.
As regards the other 3 appeals, it be noted that the subject lands were having pits and depressions or earth was removed and were placed in category 'B'.
The learned Reference Court, as noted in para 1 above assessed fair market value for category 'A' lands at Z4.65 lakhs per acre and holding that Z1.20 lakhs per acre would be required to level the lands, decreased the price by said sum and held that for category 'B' lands the fair market value would be Z3.45 Iakhs per acre.
The decision of the Reference Court was set aside by the
Division Bench vide judgment and order dated 10.3.2005 and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication for the reason the appellants had led no evidence and the Division Bench remanded the matter permitting the appellants to lead evidence, but directed that if compensation was enhanced, the appellants would not be entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation. The reason was obvious. The 3 appellants had been negligent. The RFAs are being RFA Nos.76/2001, 92/2001 and 93/2001.
Surprisingly, even at the remanded stage the 3
$ appellants did not point out to the Reference Court the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Rem Chander's case (supra), which, was reported in the year 2004.
Unfortunately for them, even at the remanded stage they landed up with the same decision as was pronounced earlier.
Since the issue of fair market value of category 'A' lands has attained finality, it has to be held that with reference to said market value, fair market value of category 'B' land has to be fixed.
The question would be, what sum needsto be depressed.
Neither have the appellants led any evidence to show what money would be spent on leveling the lands and neither has the department led any. The reasoning of the learned Reference
Court that Z1.20 lakhs would be required per acre is in the nature of an opinion of the learned Judge.
I have been noticing that in various awards the Land
Acquisition Collector has been depressing the value by 10% and
I do the same. Thus, for category 'B' lands the fair market value would be 6,27,600/- less 10% i.e. 5,64,840/- per acre.
(C LA.APP.No.112/2007, LA.APP.No.114/2007 and LA.APP.
No.115/2007 stand disposed of decreeing that the appellants shall be paid compensation for the acquired lands @5,64,840/- per acre with statutory benefits as per Land Acquisition Act 1894 but not interest on the enhanced compensation for this was the mandate when the earlier appeals filed by them were remanded; other statutory benefits as per law declared by the
Supreme Court in the judgment reported as 93 (2001) DLT 569
$ Sunder vs. UO/would be granted. I decline proportionate costs for the reason the said appellants have been negligent and had they brought to the notice of the learned Reference Court the decision in Ram Chander's case (supra) and the decisions of the learned Additional District Judge in leet Ram's case and Meer
S/ncjh's case, there would have been no need for the instant appeals to be filed.
To summarize, RFA No.225/2002 and RFA No.663/2002 stand disposed of as per para 4 above and LA.APP.No.112/2007, LA.APP.No.114/2007 and LA.APP.No.115/2007 stand disposed of as per para 14 above.
PRADEEP NAN DRAJOG, J.
AUGUST 12, 2011 dk
Ram Ciiander v. Un/on of/nd/a for Category 'A' land, the fair market value assessed is 1,30,523/- per bigha which comes to
6,27,600/- per acre.
I may note that land in village Singhola did not have any depressions or pits and thus lands in said village were not categorized into 2 categories as has been done for the agricultural lands in village Narela. In said village level land has been put in category 'A' and those lands which had depressions
7-3 or pits or where earth was removed have been classified in category 'B'.
Thus, there is no scope to enhance the compensation as regards RFA No.225/2002 and RFA No.663/2002 for the reason the appellants therein have been awarded compensation
@6,27,600/- per acre i.e. 1,30,523/- per bigha which is the same as was awarded by the Division Bench in Ram Chander's case (supra). However, since the learned Reference Court has not directed that on the enhanced compensation benefit of the judgment reported as 93 (2001) DLT 569 Sunder vs. UQI would be given, the said 2 appeals stand disposed of maintaining the compensation awarded but decreeing that on the enhanced compensation the appellants would be entitled to the benefit of the judgment reported as93 (2001) DLT 569 Sunder vs. UQI. No order as to costs in the said appeals.
As regards the other 3 appeals, it be noted that the subject lands were having pits and depressions or earth was removed and were placed in category 'B'.
The learned Reference Court, as noted in para 1 above assessed fair market value for category 'A' lands at Z4.65 lakhs per acre and holding that Z1.20 lakhs per acre would be required to level the lands, decreased the price by said sum and held that for category 'B' lands the fair market value would be Z3.45 Iakhs per acre.
The decision of the Reference Court was set aside by the
Division Bench vide judgment and order dated 10.3.2005 and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication for the reason the appellants had led no evidence and the Division Bench remanded the matter permitting the appellants to lead evidence, but directed that if compensation was enhanced, the appellants would not be entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation. The reason was obvious. The 3 appellants had been negligent. The RFAs are being RFA Nos.76/2001, 92/2001 and 93/2001.
Surprisingly, even at the remanded stage the 3
$ appellants did not point out to the Reference Court the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Rem Chander's case (supra), which, was reported in the year 2004.
Unfortunately for them, even at the remanded stage they landed up with the same decision as was pronounced earlier.
Since the issue of fair market value of category 'A' lands has attained finality, it has to be held that with reference to said market value, fair market value of category 'B' land has to be fixed.
The question would be, what sum needsto be depressed.
Neither have the appellants led any evidence to show what money would be spent on leveling the lands and neither has the department led any. The reasoning of the learned Reference
Court that Z1.20 lakhs would be required per acre is in the nature of an opinion of the learned Judge.
I have been noticing that in various awards the Land
Acquisition Collector has been depressing the value by 10% and
I do the same. Thus, for category 'B' lands the fair market value would be 6,27,600/- less 10% i.e. 5,64,840/- per acre.
(C LA.APP.No.112/2007, LA.APP.No.114/2007 and LA.APP.
No.115/2007 stand disposed of decreeing that the appellants shall be paid compensation for the acquired lands @5,64,840/- per acre with statutory benefits as per Land Acquisition Act 1894 but not interest on the enhanced compensation for this was the mandate when the earlier appeals filed by them were remanded; other statutory benefits as per law declared by the
Supreme Court in the judgment reported as 93 (2001) DLT 569
$ Sunder vs. UO/would be granted. I decline proportionate costs for the reason the said appellants have been negligent and had they brought to the notice of the learned Reference Court the decision in Ram Chander's case (supra) and the decisions of the learned Additional District Judge in leet Ram's case and Meer
S/ncjh's case, there would have been no need for the instant appeals to be filed.
To summarize, RFA No.225/2002 and RFA No.663/2002 stand disposed of as per para 4 above and LA.APP.No.112/2007, LA.APP.No.114/2007 and LA.APP.No.115/2007 stand disposed of as per para 14 above.
PRADEEP NAN DRAJOG, J.
AUGUST 12, 2011 dk