Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
LA.APP. 416/2011
MANOJ KU MAR KHOSLA Appellant
Through : Mr. L.B. Ral, Advocate
Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate for UOI.
Ms. Heena Takiar, Advocate for DDA.
21.07.2011
Allowed, subject to just exception.
C.M. No.13247/2011 (for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal)
The present application is filed by the appellant praying inter aIia for condonation of delay of 300 days in re-filing the accompanying
J!JSI*1! At the outset, counsel for the appellant states that in case the delay of 300 days in re-filing the accompanying appeal is condoned, - the appellant shall not claim interest on the enhanced amount for the period of delay.
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. 41612011 2011:DHC:14238 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 300 days in re-filing the
The application is disposed of.
Notice.
Counsels for the respondent No.1/Union of India and respondent
No.2/DDA accept notice and state that they do not wish to file any reply to the application.
The present application is filed by the appellant praying inter aIia for condonation of delay of 5 days in filing the accompanying appeal.
For the reasons stated in the application, particularly, in paras 2
& 3 thereof, the same is allowed. The delay of 5 days in filing the accompanying appeal is condoned.
The application is disposed of.
ORDER
1. By way of the present appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment 15.4.2010 passed by the Reference Court in LAC No.153/09 arising out of Award No.01/DC(W)/05-06 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').
2. 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 LA.APP.No.784/2005 entitled 'Jamna vs. UOI & Ors.' decided as recently as on 8.7.2011. 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:-
S 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. The appellants and cross-objectors who succeed would also be entitled to proportionate costs. All pending applications stand disposed of in terms of the prayers made therein." 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 LJLAPP.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 300 days in re-filing the appeal, in terms of the orders passed today in CM 13247/2011 preferred by the appellant for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal. HIMA KOHLI,] JULY 21 1 2011 rk b LA.APP. 41612011 Page[4] of 4 ' fr! - CoUnsel (LA),.G.NL) LeIrn vvuii. Ms Deepika, Mrf Sach in Nawani and Mr S,ddharth Panda AdVocates Mr Ajay Verma, Ms Kanika Agnihotfl, Mr Kunl Sharma, Mr Sumer Sethi, Mr B. B. Sharma, Ms Shobhna Takir and Mr Arun I Birb6l,AdVOCatesf0IDDA AND + LAAPP 879/2005, LAAPP 880-881/2005[1] LAIPP i21I0064 l43/207 (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated t2197 & Awd No 2/199 9 -2000, VillágeMndka) I AND I t ! I I LA APP 9/2O1O, LA APP 121/2010, L\ APP 12/2O1O, LAAPP, 1 2 5/2010, LAAPP 1641010, LAAPP 185/2010, LAAPP, 186/2010, LA APP 200/2010, LA APP 238/2010, LA APP 239/2010 LAAPP 243/2010, LAAPP 244/2010[1] LAAPP 25/2010, LAAPPI 247/2010, LAAPP 251/2010, LAAPP 252I2O1d, LAAPP 266/2010, LAAPP 2&7/2010, LAAPP,273/2O1O, LAAPP 274/2010, LA,APP 275/2010, LAAPP 312/2010,. • •1... LAAPP 324/2010, L. A.APP 326/2010, LAAPP
I. I •
I 327/2010,.. '..., - •...;... LAAPP 329/2010, LAAPP 330/2010, LAAPP ' I 331/2010, LA APP (332/2O]O, LA APP 333/21O with CM APPL No 5524/2011, LAAPP 35/2O1O, LAAPP 367/2010, LAAPP 36812010, A l L'\4PP 369/2010, LAAPP 3?1/2Q10 & CM APPL Nb2OO99/2O1O, LAAPP 374/2010, LAAR? 375/2O1O, LAAPP f 377/2010, LAAPR 379/2010, LAAPP 423/2010, LAAPP ', l •, • • •.. 452/2010,: • •. -.:. •......., ' LAAPP 461/2010, LAAPP 472/2010, LAAPP. J 694/2010, LA APP 696/2010 & CM AIPL 6340/2011, LA APP. 697/2010,.. LAAPP 698/2010 & CM APPL 1734/2011, LAAPP ' •... ': • t 706/2010 & CM APPL 17215/2010, LAAPP7O7/2O1O, LAAPP 708/2010,, LA APP 709/2010, LA APP 710/2010 with Cfvl AP?L ' No 2568I201, LAAPP 713/2010 withCM APPL No 7473I2O1O.
LAAPP 715/2010, LAAPP 717/2010, LAAPPt 719/2010, LAAPP t.... '766/2010, L r • •., '.... LAAPP 796/2010, LIAPP 797/2010, LAAPP, I 798/2010, LAAPP 799/2010, LAAPP 818/2010, LAAPP k 819/2010, LAAPP 82912010, LAAPP 831/2010 & CM APPI~ 9/2O11, LAAPP 832/2010, LAAPP 833(2010 & CM APPL 1 692/2011, LA APP 834/2010, LAPP 842/2010, LA APP S7U2010, LAtAPP 874/2010, LAPP 875/2010, LA APP 876A2010, LAtAPP 877/2010, LA1PP 878/2010, LA[1] APP 7 0 87.9/2010, LAAP'P 880/2010, LA APP 881/2010 & CM APPL6505/2011 LAAPP 882/2010, LAAPP883/2010,'LAAPP 884/2010, LAAPP 886/2010, LAPP 88812010, LAAPP 889/2010 & CM APPL2249/2011, LAAPP 890/201O, LAAPP, 893/2010 & CM APPL 6750/2011, IAAPP 894/2010 & CM No 23353/2010; LAAPP 895/2010, LA[4] APP 896/2010, LAAPP 897/2010 & CM APPL728/2011, LAAPP 903/2010, L1\APP[4] I LA APP 74/2065 & connected Page 2 of.9.... 4.:..•. •..•,.:....:,.:.....:............:..................... c I c[4] 4 4 4 4 I............................................................................................................................. ).: •.: • •;.• •....:.. L I.. L: (Relating to Nçtifrction u/s 4 dtei 17 p62OO ' '& Awar No 13/2006-07,Viilage-Mundka) I I AND + LA APP 40/2609 & Cross Objections, L APP 42/200, LAAP 428/2009, 442/2009, LA APP 11/209, LA APP 616/2009, LA APP 278/2010 I I C (Relating to Notrficatioçi u/s 4 dated 24 @9 2003 & Awarq No 3/20O4-05, Village-Bakkarwala) AND.. C C + LAAPP 1029/2010 & CM br.
LAAPP 4 1030/201p, LA'API 1031/2010, LA APP, 1033/2010 & CM No6645/2011, LAAPP 1062/2010 103/20]0 & CM No 6943/2011, LAAPP 1064/2010, LACAPP 1066/210, LAAPP 1067/2010, LA APP 11/2011, LA APP 12/201 1 (Rlating 1to Notification u/s 4 dated 1706 2005 & Aivard No 1/2006-07, Village-Bakkarwala) C CORAM 1
3 Whether the j9dgment should be reported in the Digest 7 PRADEEP NANDRAJOGJ (Oral) - -, I '1 I I.[9] I-.[1] '.[4] I I
2 The present decision concerns issue of fixation of f4r market value of l 9and in the revenue estate;ofVrllageakkarw and village Mundka
1 J to be d eterm i n L" dt y be graphiclynotedTas under, II S NoName of Village Dat[4] of notification unde Sec1ion44 of the tA Act ' 9 4 1 Bakkarwala 24912Op[3] H 2 Bakkawala ]762005 4 -. "-pursuant to a notifkation dated 5 2 1997 issued under Sectioh 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as per awad No 2/199912000 I Agricultuçal lands in the revenue estae of vIIage Mundka were; further acquired ursuant to a notiicatio dated 21 32Op[3] issued under Sectin 4 of the Land AcuisitinAct s per award: No 3/2005-06 as alo award No 1/2OO5-O[6] urther, lands in the revenue estate of the same village, we re acquired pursuant to a \, notification dated 17 6 2005 issued undenSction 4 of té LLand 1 Acquisition Act as p e r Award No 13I2QO - 07 t 81 Agricultyral lands in the revenu estate o viIIage Bakkarwala were acquired pursuant to n a otifcation dated 24 9 ~003issued Jnder Section 4 of the Lani AcquisitioyAct as % p.e,r Award No 3/2004-05 Further lands in the revenye dstate Qlf I ' the same village vre acquirer puuqntto p notifiption dated! 17 6 2005 (the saine notificatUon urider 'vhicl 'ands in viIIagL Mundka wee acqured) as per awa1d Np 112006-07 1 9 In a nut shell, th e., 1Laid Acquisition CoIectoi determined the fair, market value tf the acqu1ped lands, under al the awards, with re1ference to the minirnurh drrice for agricuIturap land as notified by the Government of NCT Delhi
10 For claity I may note that pertaining to the[4] notification dated 25 2 1997 under which agricultural lands ni t the revenue estate of village Mundka w1ere acquired, the learned W iLand Accuisition Cdllector determined the faiç markt valuewith reference to the rhinimum price for rgricutural land notifred 1l 4 1 with effect from 1. 1997 @ 10 lacs per acre and since the date! ¶ It of Section 4 notification was anterior inpoint f time, discounted LAAPP784/2005&connected Page6ofl[9] I I: 1 1 1 ¶ I I I I. i-: • • '• •: ( i acquired an thu t is not uncommon, for persoflS to prchase I smaI parceI of ts in areas where cquisiôhs are Ively, to I take p'ace, these transactions are speçuIatie and canot be: taken to be a represntatIVe measure of the fair market value of Ind as on the date of the sale Furthefl, the principles of çatio f I and proportion as also the principles of aveages andthe principles of sampling tell me that to be repesefltatiVe of the, whole, a sample must pear at intelliible proportion to the whole Thus, not for the reasoning advanced by the learned Reference Court, but for the twin reasoni,flg hiterto-fore noted, Ii hold that Ex P-i cannot be good evidenc'e vyhrefrOm market: ialue of the land càuld be determined' There is an additional ft j reason not to rely upon the said sale deed Th sale deeds Ex R-; datd 6.1.199,.3e.5.1997 4,,6.1997 and 8..91$97 I are also pertaining to Village Mundka and reflect a sale price I I 1 much lower than the sale price recorded in ExP-1 In fact,'the sale price in the sid 4 sale deeds arags much less than even the minimum price for agriculturallafld in belhi notified byç the Governpeflt
23 Thus, the fair market value of the lands would be requird to be fixed 1 either with referene to decisiod of this, Co1urt inJiSinqbCase ( supra) orPratapSinQhCa5e (supra). 24 Ihighlight that both decisions, penped by the Division' J I Beach of th'is Court have been upheld b the Sureme Court 25 The decision in La' Singh's case (sura) determined fair, market vlue of land in Village akkaryvaIa in' sum Of 1,32,000I- per big ha as of 15 10 1993 and the perusal thereof LA APP 784/2005 & connected 1 '3 •:.. •.. • •. •::........... •.• •...... ' I I lI