Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
LA.APP. 520/2011
PADAM KU MAR VAID Appellant
Through: Mr. L.B. Rai, Advocate
Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate for respondent No.1/UOI.
Mr.Arun Birbal, Advocate for respondent No.2/DDA.
04.08.2011
Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
This application is filed by the appellant praying inter a/ia for condonation of delay of 450 days in re-filing the accompanying appeal.
At the outset, counsel for the appellant states that in case the delay of 450 days in re-filing 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.
Counsel 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. 52012011 2011:DHC:13650 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 450 days in re-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.18/09/08 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, 3.) passed in a batch of matters, lead matter being
LA.APP.No.784/2005 entitled 'Jamna vs. UOI & Ors.' decided as 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: - '
LA.APP. 52012011 I) xxx ii) 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) DIT 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
-4 Jamna (surjra), 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 450 days in re-filing the appeal
LAAPP. 52012011 as also the costs of the appeal, in terms of the orders passed today in
HIMA KOHLI,J AUGUST 04, 2011 rkb
4 LA.APP. 52012011 Page[4] of 4;... '... % DateofDeCI5/Ofl 8th Ju/y2c.fl: •, • •. 784L20P; c JAMNfA AppeUant r Through Mr L B Rai, Advocate, Mr I S Dahiya, Advocate, Mr 0 5 Lakra, Advocate, Mr K Sunil, Advocate, Mr.Anuj Bhandari, Advocate Mr.Shadam Farashat, Advoate.. I
VERSUS
UOI &.ORS Respondents • ThrOugh:. Mr.SanJaY Poddar, Standing Counsel (LA), GNCT Delhi with •: Ms.eepika, Mr.Sachifl Nawani and • Mr. Siddharth Panda Advocates Mr.Ajay Verma, Ms.Kanika A9hiho1ri, Mr.Kunal Sharma, Mr.Sumer Sethi, Mr.B.B.Sharma, Ms.Shobhfla Takiar and Mr.Arun CT Birbal, Advocates for DDA AND • ±LA.APP 879/2005, LA.APP. 880-881/2005, LA.A'PP. 121/2006, 143/2007 (Relating to Notification •uls 4 dated 25.02.1997 Award No2/199-2OOO, Village Mundka) • AND 4 LA.APP. 583/2009, LA\PP. 60312009, LA.APP. 604/2009, LA.APP. 606/2009, LA.APP. 610/200, 74/2010, LA.APP. 78/2010, LA.APP.784/2005 connected Page lof 19 • / - - •1. 1' • ' c If •;ii I:......... • '...,....:.. •..... '.-.;-. ' tLAAPP 79A2010, LAAPP 121/2010, LAAPP 122/2010, LAAPP 125/2O1O, LAAPP 164/2010, LAAPP 185/2010, LAAPP ' 186/2010, LA APP 200/2010, LA APP 238/2010, LA APP; 239/201O LAAPP 243/2010, LAAPP 44/2010, LAAPP 245I2O1O, LAAPP 247/2010, LAAPP 251/2010, LAAPP 252/2010, LAAPP 266/2010, LAAPP 267/2010, LAAPP 273/2010, LAAPP 274/2010, LAAPP 275/2010[1] LAAPP 1312/2010, LAAPP 324/2010, LA APP 326/2010, LAAPP 327/2W[O LA APP 329/2010, LA APP 330/2010, LA APP 331/2010, L[1] APP 33212d10, LA APP 333/2010 with CM APPL ? No 5524/2011, LAAPP 335/2010, LAAPP 367/2010, LAAPP 368/2010[1] LAAPP 369/2010, LAAPP 371/2010 & CM APPL No20099/12010, LAAPP 374/2010, LAAPP 375/2010, LAAPP 377/2010, LAAPP 379/2010, LAAPP 423/2010, LAAPP 452/2010, LA APP 461/2010, 2 LAAPP 472/2010, LA APP 694/2010, LA APP 696/2010 & CM APPL No 6340/2011 1 LA APP 697/2010, LAAPP 698/2010 & CM APPL 1734/2011, LAAPP • 706/2010 & CM APFQ 17215/2010, LA APP 707/2010, LA APP 708/2010, LA APP 709/2010, LA APP 710/2010 with CM APPL No 2568/2011, LA APP 713/2010 with CM APPL No 747/2010, LAAPP 715/2010, LAAPP 717/2010, LAAPP 719/2010, LAAPP 766/2010, LAAPP, 796/2010, LAAPP 797/2010, LAAPP 798/2010 1 LAAPP 799/2010, LAAPP 818/2010, LAAPP 819/2010, LAAPP 829/2010, LAAPP 831/2010 & CM APPL p 955/2011, LAAPP 832/2010, LAAPP 833/2010 &1 CM APPL 6392/2011, LAAPP 834/2010, LAAPP. 2 842/2010, LA4IPP 871/2010, LAAPP 74/2010, LAAPP 875/2010, LAAPP, 876J2910, LflPP 77/2010, LAAPP 878/2010, LAAPP' 879/2010, LAAPP 880/2010, LAAPP 881/2010 & CM •..... 'APPL6505/2011 LAAPP 882/2010, LAAPP. 883/2010, LAAPP, 884/2010, LAAPP 88612010, LAAPP 888/2010, LAAPP • p889/2010 & CM APPL2249/2011, LAAPP 890/2010,,i 893/2010 & CM PPL 6750/2011, LA APP 894/2010 & CM No 23353/2010, LA APP 895/2010, LA APP 896/2010[4], LA APP,897/2010 & CM APPL728/2011, LAAPP 903/2010c LAAPP LA APP 784/2005 & connected 3 1 - I.:....................• ••. • • •:.1. • IF 1 4 !... '.:• • L -.... '..,....,....., ' t H907/2010, LAAPP 938/2010, LAAPP 99f2010, LAAPP 1034/2010 & CM APPL 3086/2011, LA APP 1040/2010 & CM ¶APPL 5673/2011, LAAPP 1041/2010, LAAPP 1043/2010, LA APP 1045/2010, LA APP 1046/2010, LA APP 1048/2010, LAAPP 1049/2010, LAAPP 1050/2010, LAAPP 1056/2010, LAAPP 1060/2010, LAAPP 1061/2010,LAAPP 1071/2010 LA APP 125/2011, LA APP 126/2011, LA APP 258/2011 (ReIating[4] to Notification u/s 4 dated 21 03 2003 & Award No 3/2005-06, Vjllage-Mundka) • ' AN D 4..[4] LAAPP 600/2009, LAAPP 60512009, LAAPP 615/2009,.4, LAAPP 310/2010, LAAPP 325/2010, LAAPP 376/2010, LA APP 383/2010, LAAPP 384/2010, LAAPP 385/2010, LAAPP, 473/2010, LAAPP 492/2010, LAAPP 586/2010, LAAPP 591/2010, LAAPP 638/2010, LAA}P 690/2010, LAAPP.4'692/2010, LAAPP 711/2010, LAAPP 716/2010, LAAPP 763/2010, LAAPP 872/2010, LAAPP 873/2010, LAAPP 88A2O1Q, LAJPP 887/2010, LAAPP 891/2010, tAAPP 892/2O10, LAAPP 898/2010, LAAPP 906/2010 & CM APPL 'No443/2010, LAAPP 937/2010 & CM APPL 23299/2010, LA APP1042/2010, LA APP 1047/210 (ReIatng to Notification u/s 4 dted 21 03 2003 & Award No 11)p5-06, Viilage-Mundka)..................................................................................... AN ID, - •-;•...•....,.,. •1:. LAAPF 1003/2010, LAAPP 1017/2010, LAAPP 1019/2010, LAAPP' 1022/2010, LAAPP/1023/2010, LAAPP 1d44/2010[1] • LA APP 1051/2010, LAAP1P" 1053/2010, LA APP 1054/2010 & CM ARPL No5656/20'1, LA APP 1055/2010, LAAPP 11057/2010.
LA APP 4 1058/2010, LA APP 1059/2010, LA APP, 1068/2019, LAAPP 1069/2010, LAAPP 124/2011, LAAPP f127/2011.LA APP 128/2011, LA APP 259/2011 LA APP 784/2005 & connected,..•. I.,...1..,. -:..., ••.... • 4.4.... •.. I 4.4.1......... i t
2 Te pret decision concerns issue of fixation ofr market value of Iarid in the revenue estate of Viflage Bakkarwa and village Mundka,
3 The dtes on which fair market value of the land hs to be determined may be graphtcally noted as under - ( S No Name Villge Date of notification under,:'• Sction4oftheLAAct::•;....; •• • 1 & Bakkarwala 24.92003 ' 2 J Rakkarwala., 17 6 2005 3 Mundka 25 2 1997
4 Mundka 21 3 2003
5 Mundka 1762005
4 It M ay be highlighted that the notificatioh atseril No 2 hereinabove, pertaining to village Bakkarwala, is the same pursuant whereto lands were acquired in the revenue estateof ) Village Mundka, as per serial No 5 above 5 Abutting NH-lU, leading from the city of Delhi to the township of Rohtak,in the State of Haryana, are villages Mundka, Ghevra and Tikr: Kalan Village Bakkarwala lies towards te other 'side of he Southern boundary of village Mundka The I difference between the topology of the two villages is whereas the land of village Mundka abuts NH-lU, that of. village Bakkarwala does not so abut being on the other side of the Southern boundary of revenue estate of village Mundk
6 As we proceed from the city of. Delhi to the towhship of Rohtak, village Nundka is crossed first, followed by village Ghevra and then village Tikri Kalan 7 Agricultural lands i nr,village Mundka wereacquired LAAPP734/2005&conflected Page5Ofl[9] H: t[3] notification dated 17 6 2005 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per Award No 13/2006-07 8 Agncultural lands in the revenue estate & villagLe Bakkarwala were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 24 9 2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act a per Award No 3/2004-05 Further lands in the revenue estate of I the same village were acquired pursuant to a notificatiOn dated vp 17 6 2q05 (the same notification ukder which lands in village Mundka were acquired) as per award No 1/200607 9 In a nut shell, the Land Acquisition Collector determined the fair market vaue of the acquired lands, under all the awards, with reference to the minimum price for agricultural ' and asnotified by the Government of NCT Delhi 10 For 'clarity I may note that pertaining t the notification dated 25 2 1997 under which agricultural lands in fk i n nci-mi-n rf,iIirtc Mi irr1it rrii rirr[1] 1- hp Ism r. I h t v /2- !,,,Govern,ment of NCT De'hi had fixed the miirnum value f f agricultural lands in Delhi I e 1 4 1997 but as against the Land Acquisition Collector depressing the price @ 11 5% for full one year, adopting the percentage 11 5, decreased the value by only 34 days inasmuch as the date with reference whereto Goverrment had notified the minimum value was 1 4 1997 and I the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was dated 25 2 ]997 This was the value fixed for category A land and for category B. lands, with reference to the values for j. category A land depressed the same by 90,000/- per acre
13 Thus, for category A lands the Reference Court determined the fair market value @ 9,89,288/- per acre and for category B land the same was determined @, 8,99,288/- per S acre
14 Pertainin to the notifications dated 21 3 2003 and 24.9.2601, whereunder agricultural lands in villge Muçidka,and village the Refernce Bakkarwala' respectively were acquired, Co'urt took note of the fact that after the Government had notified the minimum rates for agricultural lands in Delhi as of 1 4 2001 the next revision was as 9f 30 8 2005 Using the said dates and the niinimum price notifid by the Government of NCT Delhi, the Referende Court adol3ted the principle of mean average What the Reference Court did was to adopt the value as of 14 2001 and increasing he same by 10% per annum determined the enhanced price as of 21 3 2003 as also 24 9 2003 Thereafter the Reference Court took the value j notif'ed as of 30 8 2005 and depressing the same by 10% per LA APP 784/2005 & connected I Page 8?of 19 • -- • l- • •.•- -.: •.......... ';.....'.... ':.' ',: • '....:..:. •'.',.. -. 1, •.. ?annum determined the sum arrved at as of 21 3 2OO s 24 9 2003 The two sums arrived at were added and divided by I two to arrive at the mean figure as of 21 3 2003, which I note tcomes to 15,92,083 33 per acre (In some decisions I notethe s u m arrived at is 15,92,215/-Y For the date 24 9 2003 the:1 [price determined w a si 20,41,000/- per acre 15 Pertaining to the notification dated 17 6 2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were acquired in village t Bakkarwala and Muqdka the learned Reference Court adopted the minimum price for agricultural lands notified by, the Governhient of NCT Delhi with effect from 1 4 2001 and giving tmnuease @10%per annum determind the ialue nd with respect to the lands in village Mundka, on account of locational. •,advantge, being abutting NH-lU gave 5% more ançL Idetermined the fair market value as of 17.6.2005,in[4] sum of 21,37,017 75 per acre and for village Bakkarwala the pice determined wa,sj Z20,35,,255/-. per acre
16 In t aforesaid backdrop of the factual scenario in, twhich I have penred pr9filed the reasoning of the Land AcquIsition CoUector as also that of the Refererce Court, I delve flnto th[9] arguments advanced before me during hearing today
17 With re4ference to the evidence led in LAC No 384/2004 /ahina Vs UQI & Ors, it was urged by Sh LB Rai,. earnd counsel for the appellant in LA App No 784/2005, which argument was adopted by other learned counsel who appeared for, the other appellants, that the learned Tnal Judge wa not ustified in ignoring the sale deed Ex P-i whereunderl bJgh[1] LAAPP784/2OO5&conriected Page9ofl[9] • • • • • •-•:.•.• •••. • -.• • 4 - • •.-: • ••. •'.. 4; - -.. -..-..[4] •.. -- • -- •• • '.. ••:1-,•.-.•.• 1 -. ••. •.•• ••.- •..• •i'.-. I '........;; •':.. ••.•:.... •... '•;:.'•.•••;•:.: 1a1nd biwaof agricultural land in viNage Mundkawas 3d asof
20 An independent and alternative argument is also d4anced by learned counsel for the Union The same rests itelf on a decision of a Divisidn Bench of this Court reported as 2006 (135) DLT 231 /aisingh Vs 1.101 21.1.The de'cision in /a! Singh's case (supra) concerns itself with the determination of the fair market value of land in villag Balkarwala which we acquired pursuant to a notification datd 15 10 1993 at 1i,32,000/ per bigha Learned counsel woLld urge that the said decision has attained finality inasmuch LA 784/2005 & connecte AP d I I I I - - - -.[1] I I I I I I -. as PIt for Special Leave to Appeal filed before the Suprem Cou4by either side have been dismissed Learned counse takes'the argumentforward by urging that by adopting the fair rnarket value of land in village Bakkarwala as of 1510 1993 at per, bigha, the fair market value should b ascertained by increasing the price progressively by 10% per annur to determine th hiarket value of land in viilge akkarwala as of 24 9 2003 asalso 17 6 2005 'Learned counsel would urge that inl.View of the locational advantage of villg Mundka, fair marketk value of land in village Mundka should be determined as of 25.2.1997, 21 3 2003 and 17 6 2005, by giving J OX: 5 6 increase. - 22 With respët to the sale deed Ex P-i, whereunder I bigha and 3 biswa of agricultural land was sold in Village Mundka as of 5 8 196 it would assume importance that th sale is about 7 months prior to the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was issued or 25 2.1997. It is a matter of common knowledge that precedin the publication of a notification under Section 4 of t h e Lanc Acquisition Act, survey's are carried out with the object of determlining as to what lands, comprised in which khasra numbers a n d fields are required to be notified for t h e, proposed acquisition and: when this happën.-pople in the area-conie.td know that very soon thee 1 is every likelihood that the land • •: •.......: • • •,: •. •:.: c •••. j J ired nd1hus, t is not uncommon, forpersoflS to purchase aqu sTn&l paceIs of lands in areas where acquisitiqfls are likeIyto take place, these transactions are speculative and cannot be taken to b a represefltatlVe measure of the fair market value of Ind as on, th date of the sale Further, the principles of ratio nd propdrtion as alo the principles of averages and te rinciples of sampling tel me that to be representative of the ihole, a sample must bear at intelligble proportion to the vhole Thus, no for the reasoning advanced by the learned eference Court,but for the twin reason ing hitherto-fore noted, I iold that Ex P-i cannot be good evFdence wherefrom market 'alue of the land could be determined There an additippal eason not to rely upon theaid sale deed The sale deeds ER- S I to Ex.R-4, dated. 6J.1995, 30.5.1997, 4.6.1997 and.9.1997 are also pertaining to Village Mundka and reflect a sale price nuch lower than the sale price recorded in Ex P-i In fact, t he pale price in the said 4 sale deeds averages much less than for agriculural land in peihi notified by, even the minjmum price the Government I23...Thus, the fair market value of the lands would be required to be fixed either with reference to th&decislofl of this Court i nJjSIjgJ5case (supra) or PratapS/nc1/iCaSe (supra)
24 I highlight that both decisions, penned by the Division Bench o,f this Court have been upheld bythe Supreme Court j25 The decision in fat SIng/75CaSe (supra) determined fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala in sun of 1,32,000I- per bigha as of 15 10 1993, and theperusal thereof LA APP 784/2005 & onnected • •.................. •.,,.:..'•••................ s,.... wouId show that the Court assessed the fr market value pith reference tO sale deeds executed between the years 19O till;the year 1996 either in Village Tikri Kalan or, Village 7M undka, Lpparentiy on the premise that eing conpguous villagers, saI' price of agricultural land in the 2 adjoining villages would be Ind{IcatIve of fair market value of land 4in Villae Bakkarwala
26 In Pratap Singh's case (supra), the Division Bench was concerned with agricultural )ands in Tikri Kalan and another adjoining Village named Ghevra,and pertaining to various (notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisitiorc Act determined the fair market value of agricultural lands in Village 1Tikri Kalan and Ghevra as under - - - - 7 -- --;... ';.. t.;. '• •.... --.,.....,,.
2 I am left with the notification dted 24 9 2003 a. pertalniDg to Village Bakkarwala arid with rference to the fair market value assessed in Chiranhl La/'s case, I would require to ppreciate price by 10% per annum for a perod of 201 days, t i thefiUe conS to 4,25,641/- per bigha I e 2O,43,O76 80 pe cre, Whi1ch I determihe to be the fair,market value of, land'in Village Bakkarwala as of 24 9 2003 33 th& Accordingly, appeals filed by the, Union of India frequire to be dismissed and I hereby dismiss the same The ppealsfiIed by the land owners and the cross-objections filed by the land owners stands decreed as under i) For the land falling in Category A 'land in Village 1undka the Mir market value is fixed at is 2,49,408 75 per bigha i e 11,97,1621- per a(re and for Category B lnds, the fair market value is fixed at 2,01,117/- per bigha i e 9,65,361 60 per acre, as on 25 02 1997 '1 For the land situated in Villge Mundka the fai market value is fixed at 4,03,425I- per bigha i e 19,36,410/- per, acre, as on 21 03 2q03 ni) For the land situated in Village Mundka the fair market value is fixed at 4,98,589/- per bigha ie 23,93,227 20 pr acre, as on 17 06 2005 iv) For the land situated in Village Bakkarwala thee fair market value is fixed at 4,98,589/- per bigha i e LA APP 784/2005 &onnected I I t ) --. - -- -- -:-- - I.,.,........,,.... •. •.,.: •.• ••. ' I 23,93 227 20 per acre, as on 17 06 2005 For the land situated in Virlae Bakkatwaa th fair: market value is fixed at 44 25,641/- per bigha i e 2O,43,O76 80 per acre, as on 24 09 2003 t I ¶ Appellants and cioss-objectors who have succeedd, 'ivould also be entitled to solatium and interest as per statute and 'as clarified in the decision reported as 93(2001) DLT 569 Sunder vs (JO!, for the compensation, paid originally and as enhanced by the Reference Court and finally on the sum enhaçiced by the present judgment ad decree 'The appellants and cross-objectors 'ho succeed would also be entitled to proportionate costs All pending applications stand disposed of in terms of the prayers made therein
(PRADEEPNANDRAJOG) JUDGE 1Y 08, 2011 IV, LA,APP.784/2005 &'connécted • •