Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
LA.APP. 527/2011
AJAY BUDHI RAJA Appellant
Through: Mr. L.B. Ral, Advocate
Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate for UOI.
Mr. Paramhans Sahani, Advocate for Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate for R-2/DDA.
• HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
08.08.2011 CM 14596/20 11 (for condonation of deav in fihng the appeall
This application is filed by the appellant praying inter a/ia for condonation of delay of 648 days in filing the accompanying appeal.
At the outset, counsel for the appellant states that in case the delay of 648 days in preferring the accompanying appeal is condoned, the appellant shall not claim interest on the enhanced amount for the period of delay as also the costs of the appeal.
Counsels for the respondent No. 1/Union of India and respondent No.2/DDA state that they have no objection to the aforesaid suggestion made by the counsel for the appellant.
LA.APP. 52712011 2011:DHC:13653 Accordingly, the present application is allowed with the condition that the appellant shall not be entitled to claim interest on the enhanced amount for the period of delay of 648 days in filing the appeal as also the costs of the appeal.
The application is disposed of.
By way of the present appeal, the appellant has assailed the
ORDER
No.20/09/08 arising out of Award No.01/DC(W)/2005-06 pertaining to village Mundka, pursuant to the notification dated 21.03.2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (in short 'the Act').
Counsel for the appellant submits that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench (Pradeep
Nandrajog, J.) passed in a batch of matters, lead matter being
' recently as on 08.07.2011. Learned counsel particularly draws the attention of this Court to the operative para 33 of the aforesaid judgment, relevant portions of which are reproduced herein below:-
"33. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Union of India require to be dismissed and I hereby dismiss the same.
The appeals filed by the land owners and the cross- objections filed by the land owners stands decreed as under:-
I) xxx For the land situated in village Mundka the fair market value is fixed at 4,03,425/- per bigha, i.e.
19,36,440/- per acre, as on 21.03.2003. xxx xxx xxx
Appellants and cross-objectors who have succeeded would also be entitled to solatium and interest as per statute and as clarified in the decision reported as
. 93(2001) DLT 569 Sunder vs. UOI, for the compensation, paid originally and as enhanced by the
Reference Court and finally on the sum enhanced by the present judgment and decree."
It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant is also entitled to the relief as granted to other similarly placed appellants in the aforesaid batch of matters, to which counsel for the respondent/UOI has no objection.
Following the aforesaid decision dated 08.07.2011 in the case of
Jamna (supra), the present appeal is also disposed of on the same lines, while granting the same relief to the appellant as granted to the appellants in the LA.APP.784/2005. However, it is clarified that the appellant shall not be entitled to claim interest on the enhanced compensation for the period of delay of 648 days in filing the appeal as also the costs of the appeal, in terms of the orders passed today in CM ©
14596/2011 preferred by the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
HIMA KOHLI,J AUGUST 08, 2011 rkb .
!4e- LAAPP. 52712011 Page4of4 . . .
'
)
THEH;IcH COUR9 OF. bELHJ:AT NEW DELHI ' :
4$ k . . .
;t i.
, :•
•''. , p, '; •
LA.PP:784/2OQ .
(: H I Appeflant J\MNA
Through Mr L B Rat, AdvoCate 4 i Mr I S Dahiya. Advocate, %
I Mr D S Lakra, Advocate, i: Mr K Sunil, Adv(cate, '
MrAnuj Bhandan, Advocate $ Mr Shadam Farashat, Advocate
$
4 Versus, &, Respondents udi & ORS c Through Mr Sanjay Poddar, Standrng Counsel (LA), GNCT Delhi with S, I ! Ms Deepika, Mr Sachin Nawani and Mr Siddharth Panda Advocates ' Mr.Ajay Vem, Ms.Karika Agnihotri, Mr Kunal Sharma, Mr Sumer Sethi, Mr B B Sharma, j Ms Shobhna Takiar and Mr Arun Birbal, Advocates for DDA AND + LAAP 879/2005[1] LA APP 880-881/2005 LA APP 121/20O[6] 143/2007 (Relating to Ndtiftcation u/s 4 dated 25 02 17' & Award No 2)1999-2000, Village Mundka) • AND I +1 LAAPP 583/2009, LAAPP 603/2009, LAAPP 604I009, L APP 606/2009, LA APP 610/2009, 74/2010, LA APP 78/2010 I 1.• LAAp784/2005&connected Pagelofl[9] H 11! r... r t:.: •..... •.'.. -...-. 907/2010, LAAPP 938/2010, LAAPP 93912010, LAAPP 1Ô34/2@ 1 Q & CM APPL 3086/2011, LAAPP 1040/2010 & CM, r APPL 5673/2011, LAAPP 1041/2010, AAPP 1O43/2O1O, j LAAPP 1045/2010, LAAPP 1046/2010, LAAPP 1048/2010Y j L\APP 1049/2010, LAAPP 1050/2010, LAAPP 1056/2010, LAAPP 1060/2010, LAAPP 1061/2010, LAAPP 1071/2010, jLAAPP125/2O11,LAAPP 12€/2011,LAAPP 258/2011 (ReIatig to Notification u/s 4 dated 21 03 2003 & Award 3/2005-06, ViIEage-Mundka)
LA APP 600/2009, LA APP 605/2009, LA APP 615/2009, LAARP310/2010, LAAPP 325/2010, LAAPP 376/2010, LAAPP 383/2010, LA APP 384/2010, LA APP 385/2010,, LA APP 473/200, LAAPP 492/2010, LAAPP 586/2010, LAAPP 591/2010' LAAPP 638/2010, LAAPP 690/2010, LAPP f692/2010, LAAPP 711/2010, LAAPP 716/2010, LAAPP LA APP 872/2010, LA APP 873/2010, LA APP 763/20i0, 885/2010, LA APP 887/2010[1] LA APP 891/2010, LAAPP 892/2010, LA APP 898/2010, LA APi? 906/2010 & CM APPL No 4443/2010, LA APP 937/2010 & CM APPL 23299/2010, LA APP 1042/20 10, LA APP 1047/2010 (ReIaing to Notification u/s 4 date 21 03 2003 & Award ' No 1/2005-06, Village-Mundka) 'I AND LA APP 1003/2010, LA APP 1017/2010,' LA APP 1019/2010, L4APtP 1022/2010, LAAPP 1023/2010, LAAPP 1044/2010,' • LAAP,P 1051/2010: LAAPP •105312010, LAAPP 1054/201D & CM APPL No 5656/2011, LA APP 1055/2010, LA APP 1057201O, LA APP 1058/2010, LA APr) 1059/2010, LAAPP U068/2010, LA APP 1069/2010, LA APP 124/2011, LAAPP 127/2011,LAAPP 128/2011,LAAPP 259/2011 LA APP 784/2005 & connected t
I. I • •.,• • •. •.,••. •..........., •:.:: ? 2 T? pfsent decision concerns issue of fixatiø of 1fft H mrket vaIe' of land in the rvenue estate of Village Bakkara J and vIhiage Mundka 3 The dates on which fair arket value of m the land ha to determined iay be grapçally tnoted asunder -
Sectiori 4 of the LA Act I 1: BakkakJa 24 9 2003 4 ? BakkarwF 17 6 2005 3 Mundka 25 2 1997 4 Mundka 21 3 2003 Mundka 17 6 2005 J[4] r 4 t may be highlighted that the notification at seriOj No 2 )iereinabove, pertaining to village Bakkarwala, i the same S pursu4ant whereto lands were acquired in the revenue estate Villag Mundka,as per serial No 5 abov1e 4L\butting NH-lU, leading fro4n the city of Delhi "!.,tGT the.... township of Rohtak in the State of Haryna,are villages Mundka, Gheva and Tkri Kalan Village Bakkarwala 1iesl. towards the other side of t h e' Southern boundary ofvillage Mundka The difference between the topology of the two villages is, whereas the land of village Mundka abuts NH-lU, that of village I Bakarwala does not sb abut, being on the other side of the SouthrnboundaryofrevenueestateofvilIageMundka •
6 As we proceed from the city of Delhi to the township 1 •.t.....•. •. of Rbhtak, village Mundka is crossed first, followed by village -
7 Agricultural lands in village Mundka were acquired fi LA APP 4784/2005 & connected $1 I ¶ I 1- 4 4 4 I 1 •-• • •...i. I 4' \ T the pric for one year @ 11 5% per annum This price was adoptedfor category A lands For lands in category B, the value was fur*er discounted by 90,000/- per acrePertaining to the notifict1ons dated 21 3 2003 and 24 9 2003, the Land Acquisition Collector relied upon the notification fixing the minirntm price of agricultural landi as of 1.42001 and gave no benefitof enhancement with reference to the fact that the fair, marke;value of the lands tox be determined was as of, 213 2003 2 and 24 9 2003 Even pertaining to the notification dated:17 6 2d05 which equired fair market value of land to be, etermined in the revenue estate of village Bakkarwala and village Mundka as of 17 6 2005, the Land Acquisition Collector determned the same with reference to the notification fixing minimum value of agricultural lands in Delhi as of 1 4 2001 and gave no increase
11 Aggrieved by the determination of the fair market va l ue b o f the lands by the Land Acquisition Collector, the 'and owners sought a •:reference under Section 18 of theOndl Acquisition Act 1894 and o the reference being made, vide Variniic iti imAnfc A nr drc n,hirk i,4-- } 9fjthe Lrid Acquisit1or ct Larne counsel would concede to t the reasons given t the learned Reference Court are not oI;Jnc:ii would urgetht the two contentions advanced by hiri should be considered by this Court as the reasons as to why ExP-i be not taken as the basis to determine the fair market ialue of lands in village Mundlcça and Bakkarwala Thirdly, Jearned counsel would ffurther urge that the four sale deeds Ex ft-i to R-4 referred to in the decision of the learned eerence[1] Court,,. portainingr to sale deeds dated 6 1 1995, 3O[5] 197, 4 6 1997 ad 8 9 1997 relied upon by UOI would shw the actual markt value of the land and thus learned coçinsef would urge that the said four sa4le deeds should be corsidered, but hastens to add, that since value reflected thejeln is less than the minimum pice notified by 1 the Gojernmeit, t h e price fixation should be with reference to the 4 1 minimum price notified by the Governmeiit which is nearest to the, point of time when the respective notifications 2, were issued unçier Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act
20 An independent and alternative argument is also ad1anced pY learned counsel for the Union The same rest ci eported as itslf on a desion of a Division Bench of tins Court r 2006 (135) DLI 231 /aisingh Vs 110/ 21 fhe decision in /aiSingh's case (supra) concerns itself with the determination of the fair market value of land in village 4'- Bakkarwàla which were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 15 0 1993 aP 1,32,000/- per bigha Learned counsel would ure that the said decision has attained finality inasmdch LA APP 784/2005 & connected.........................' •.•- --' 4 4 4 • •. •s. I.•.. --...••.. ••.41. ••. '•.... • - 4., •.. '-.....• r ••4....... • 4. ¼..4....... S.NO., Date. Yillage Priceper Bigha 1 24 07 1995[1] & Tikri Kalan 2,1,160/- for Bthck 16 1 1995 A & 1,73,5d0/7 for Block B land
2. 11 06 1996 Ti)<ri Kalan & 2,35,815/2for Bock Ghevra A & 1,90,156/- for 3 117 12 2002 Tikri Kalan, 4,O2850/- for Block t.,.,...: A & 3,24,8501- for
I. S 1 ' wouId how that the Court assessed the fair market value 1witEi reference o sale deeds execiuted between the'years 1999 till 1 the yer, 1996 either. in Village Tikri Kalan or Village Mundka, appaetfy on the premise that being contiguous villagers, sale price of agricultural land in the 2 adjoining villges would be indicative of fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala In Pratap Singh's case (supra), the Division Bench was concerned with jag.Ncultural lands in Tikri Kalan and another I Village named Ghevra and pertaining to various notifications issued under Section 4 of the Lnd Acquisition Act determined the fair mrket value of agricultural 4ands in Village Tikri Kalan and Ghevra as under - 11,97,[6] 2!- per 'acre pncl ror,La.tegp[y b 1;dIIu.5,.. fair market vaiue at 2,01,117/- per bigha i e 9,65,61 60 per I acre
9 The next notifi cation with vhich I am concerned.j f dated91 32003 pertaining to Village frlundka In Chiranji La/'s: cas(supra), with reference to the decision in Pratap Singh's case; (supra), for agricultural lands in Village Ghevra pertaini'ng to a I potification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 6 2 2003, the fair market value assessed was 4,O[3],425I-per I bigha This was uniformly applied Since there is a time4gap of just a'little over 1 month, I am of the opinion that pertainingto S he notification dated 21 3 2003, fair market value of land in: Village Mundka should be Z[4],03,4251- i e 19,36,44OI- per acre,; which,l hereby fix t
30 I propose to deal with the notification dated t ' k 24 9 2op[3], after deali ng with t he,notification dated 17 6 2005 pursunt whereto agricultural 1,0 nds were acquired in Village Mundka and Village Bakkarwala: 31 As noted hereinabove,.in Chiranhi Lal's case (supra), g to the noticatiofl dated 6 2 2003, fair market valuB pe assessed byme was 4,03,425I- per bigha ançl thus, increasing the same by 10% for 2 years and 131 days, the figure m coes to 4,98,59I- per bigha, which coes to 23,93,227 20 per cre m The sarL is m held by e to be the fair arket m value of land in Village Mundka and Village Bakkawala as of 17.61005 I decree I the sam I e. H I LAAppg/2OO5&connected S Mundka the fair market vatue is tixea at is I 2,49,408 75 per bigha I e 11,97,162/- per acre and I: for Category B lands, the faft market value is fixed at, 2,01,117/- per bigha i e 9,65,361 60 per acre, as ' u) For the land situated in Village Mundka the fair mrket value is fixed at 4,03,425I- per bigha i e l[9],36,440I- per acre, as on 21 03 2003 iii) For the land situated Jn Village Mundka the fatr market value is fixed at 4,98,589/- per bigha i e 23,93,227 20 per acre, as on 17 06 2005,iv) For the land situted in Vilfge Bakkarwala the fair market value is fixed at 4,98,589I- per bigha i e' LAAPP784/2005&connected Page18of[1] I I -..:: • •• •. • -... •!. ---... -------, - i------. -.----- 4.:....,.,,.,.,..., \. ',,.....•: •....... 23,93,227 20 per acre, as on 17 06 2005 I v I For the land situated in Villlagç Bakkarv1a th fair market value is fixed at 4,25,641/- per bigha ie 20,43,076 80 per acre, as on 24 09 2003 vi) Appellants and cross-objectors who have ucceeded AN would also be entitled to solatiurn and inteest as per statute and as clarified in the decision reported as 93(2001) DLT 569 Sunder vs 110/, for the compensation, paid originally and as enhanced ty the Reference Court and fin,ally on the sum enhanced by, the present judgment and decree iii) The appellants and cross-objctors who succeed would also be entitled to proportionate costs viii) All pending applications stand disposed of in terms of the prayers made therein r
JUDGE ULYO 8,[2] O 11 lnm 1A APP 784/2005 & connected 9 H.•,..