Full Text
LA.APP. 58212008 RAGHBIR SINGH & ORS .....Appellant
Through: Mr.S.K.Rout, Ms.Sukhda Dhamija and Ms. Dimple Dham ija, Advocates
VCTSUS
UOI & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate for R-l
ORDER o/o L5.O7.2OLL For orders see LA.APP.L3l2007 .
-r nr-:dc-t tlt PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
2011:DHC:13789 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 1.5h Jul.v 201.1.
Appella nt
Through: Mr. S.K.Rout & Mr.N.S.Dalal, Advocates
Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Standing . : Counsel (LA), GNCT Delhi . with Mr.Sachin Nawani and
' Mr Siddharth Panda Advocates for , R-l- AND
LA.APP. L4I2OO7, . L6I2OO7 , LA.APP.
567 t2008 LA.APP.5 8412008, ,APP.5g512009, i I.l
Roshan Lal LA.App.590/2008, LA.App.59312008, LA.APp.5 98/2 008, LA.App.604/2 008, t
;:
I.j.
(Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 12.08.1997' & Award
No.5/DCW/2000-01, Village Baprola)
JUDGMENT
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed 'to see'the judgment?.
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? LA.App.No.l3/2007 I 'i a I.- lt l' Page I of[8],[6] It 'l 'l:l tl !l o.t tl, I \i -\+ il '! i rf. 'l L>n t) a.t,I;i ri 'l,.[4] a.! -l
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? (Oral)
1. Above captioned appeals Peftain agricultuial lands comprised in the revenue Baprola. Acquisition commenced pursuant dated L[2].8.tggit issded under Section Acquisition Act. to acquisition of estate of village to a notification 4 of the Land
2. As per awa rd No.5/DCW/2000.01, the Land Acquisition collector categorized the acquired lands into Block A and Block B. He determined fair market value of Block A tands at {2,08,383/- per bigha and Block B lands at TL,77 '0831per bigha.
3. Land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and for reasons which are not very commendable, the learned Reference Court decided the references by passing orders on different dates'
4. The orders by which references have been decided are dated 25.8.2006, 28.8.2006, 29.8.2006, 30.8.2006' 3{,8.2006, 19.9.2006, 22.9.2006, 29.9.2006 and 30.L0.2006.
5. I would note,that all orders have been passed by the same Judge. lt is apparent that the learned Judge deciding the references was more concerned with the units'which he would earn
6. The problem which he has created for the Appeltate Court is that evidence is scattered in various references and different pieces of evidence has been considered in different orders, and further' with respect to the same evidence, LA.App.No.l312007.l.l ';,I -: a,t li I I' s/ t ri r'i a Page 2 of[8]:.i,t r', a..\l t {tr I,l -rl different reasoning are to be found in different orders' lt has on|ymadethejourneyofthisCourta|itt|e|onger. T.TheReferenceCourthasenhancedthe,compensation to {2,17,374|. per bigha for B|ock A |and and {1,86,123.38 per bigha for Block B land' A perusal of the varidus decisions would show, and indeed learned counsel for the parties so concede, th.e learned Trial Judge was seized with 3 sale deeds dated 5.L[2].].996, 5.8.1996 and 19.5.1987, exhibited as Ex.PW-1/1, Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex'PW-L/3 in LAC No.178/2004. Exhibit marks in other references would be different.' The learned Reference court also discussed an.agreement to se|l dated L[7],8.1996, Ex.PW-1/4 in LAc No'178/2004' nt decision reference
8. Thus, for PurPoses of the insta is being made to the evidence led in LAC No'L7812004' lt may be highlighted that the land owners, in different references wert relying upon either or all the above 4 exhibits' 9.; Ex.PW-1/1 pertains to ]. bigha and 3 biswa of |and sold in tha rbvenue estate of viilage Nilothi. Ex.Pw-llz pertains to 1 bigha land sold in village Mundka and Ex'PW-1/3 pertainstolbigha|andso|dinvi||ageNajafgarh. l0..Thereasoningofthe|earned.ReferenceCourt.in various orders, refusing to place reliance'upon the said sale deeds, is that the contiguity of the 3 villages with village Baprola would be no ground to treat the pricg of the iand in the said sale deeds as reflected of the market value of land in village Baprola for the.reason if the principle of contiguity is to be applied, entire Delhi would become one unit' LA.App.No.t312007 Page 3 of[8] L I 1_1. Different reasons have been given by the learned learned Reference Court, to hues of the view in the (i)l WAS
(ii) Reference Court not to rely upon the agreement to sell, Ex.PW- 1/1 whereunder for the date L[7].8.1996, 12 bigha and 10 biswa of land in village Baprola was agreed to be sold for t24 lacs per acre.'
12. The reasoning of the, cumulatively read; wi\h reference various impugned orders is:- The stated part sale consideration in sum of T[6] lacs in cash. The buyer did not enforce the agreement to sell'and to be refunded in sum of the parties settled for the amount t[8].[5] lacs in cash.
(iii) The purchaser was a student at the time of the transaction and there was no evidence of his having any source of income. 1lv) No steps were taken to obtain no objection certificates from the income tax or the revenue authorities.
13. Cumulative effect aforesaid of the 4 circumstances ' would be, as per the different process of reasoning adopted, tdat the transaction is shrouded with suspicion and thus would not be a safe guiding index to determine the fair market value of land in village Baprola. L[4]. While enhancing the compensation, ttie learried Reference Court has,adopted the price noted by the Governnient, being the minimum price for agricultural land in Delhi and depressing the same for category B land and without depressing the same for Category A land, enhanced the LA.App.No.l3/2007 Page 4 of[8] ? n tvt,
16. corRpensation by giving price rise @ L2o/o p.a. on the minimum price as notified. '
15. Learned counsel for the appellants would urge that a perusal of the map of the city of -Delhi would reveal that as we proceed from the city of Delhi towards the township of Rohtak along NH-10, village Mundka is crossed; the lands of village Mundka abut NH-10. The map of Delhi would furth'er show that Najafgarh road, leading to Delhi from Dhansa hits NH-10 near Daya Basti. To put it differently, as NH-10 crosses Daya Basti, Najafgarh'road branches out; the point forming a In between Najafgarh road and NH-LO, the space k bet(areen the 'v' has various villages. The village of Nilothi, Baprola, Mundka and Bakarwala are located in the said space. standing on Najafgarh road'and looking straight towards the Nolth, we find that first in the line is village Baprola followed by the lands of village Bakarwala and then the land of village Mundka. In other words; whereas lands of village Baprola would be near Najafgarh road, proceeding along a straight line in the Northern direction would be agricultural land of village Bakarwala and finally the land in village Mundka and these lands would abut NH-10. ' L[7]. In other words the locational advantage of rands in village Mundka would be that they abut NH-10. The locational / advantage of the lands in village Baprola would be that though not exactly abutting Najafgarh road, they are extremely proximate to Najafgarh road. Being towards Najafgarh road, lands in'village Baprla are near the urbanized part of Delhi, LA.App.No.13/2007 Page 5 of[8] r.\\# I.l } tf 1I;l,;t,l il il 'l It i It.l t- ji:,\-/,J. \ -, i. tr a.;l i. tl. ri,l:f 'i ii il 4i.t:'t "il I '' trl, ti rl l[1].F \v,I l I I f ".! 't ri,i "i.: and I note that the residential colony of Vikas Puri abuts the "agricultural lands of village Baprola' 1g. Thus, the reasoning of the learned Reference court./ pertaining to not relying upon the sale deeds of villages Nilothi, Mundka and Najafgarh does not appeqr to be sound for the reason the learned Reference court has not considered the topology of the area in its totality and has failed to appreciate that villages Baprola, Nilothi, Mundka and Najafgarh are between the ''V' constituted by NH-10 and Najafgarh road'
19. However, it may be noted that small parcels admeasuring 1 bigha and 3 biswa, 1 bigha and 1 biswa respectively, were sold under the sale deeds Ex'PW-L/1, Ex.PW-1 12 and Ex.PW-1/3. The principtes of a sampling would guide the Court that to be a representative of the whole, a samtle must bear a reasonable proximation to the whole and if the sample is too meager, it would be a sample improperly so called and not a sampie properly so called'
20. Thus, not fOr the reasoning of the learned Reference court, but for my reasoning hereinbefore noted, l hold that it would be unsafe to determine the market value of agricultural lands in village Baprola with reference to the said 3 sale deeds. 2L. As regards the agreement to sell Ex.PW-1/4, I accord my concurrence with the reasoning of the 'learned Reference court, it is sound and logical. For the 4 features pertaining to the said agreement to sell, as extracted herpinabove, l hold that it would be most unsafe to rely upon Ex.PW-1/4 to determine the fair market value of lands' in village Baprola. a;, I:l tl \i i. i' a \3t i 'I i.;; LA.App.No.l312007 Page 6 of[8] |I
22. Land In mY decision dated Acquisition APPeals, 8.7.201L, deciding a batch of lead matter being I.r ti t. \ ',v, I a i '1 LA.App.N o.784t20O[5] tamna Vs' lJ'Ot & Ors" pertaining to a notification dated 25.2.1997, fair market value of category A " |ands in vi|lage Mundka was determined at {11,97,162/0 per,acre and for category B |ands the same WaS determined at {9(65,361.60 Per acre' "
23. Ihavealreadyhe|dhereinabovethatthetopo|ogy of the area would entitle equivalence of agricultural lands in village Mundka with village Bakarwala as also the instant village, BaProla.
24. Since categorization of the lands has not been questioned, thus I hold that for the acquired lands in village Baprola, pertaining to the, notification dated L2'8'L997 ' fair market value of land could safely be assessed with reference to the decision in lamna's' case"(supra) and by granting 1'O% increase in the ' value of the land, commencing 25 '2'L997 ' being the notification with which I was concerned in Jamna's ("r" (supra), instbnt notification being L[2].'8'L997 ' the increased fair market value of land pertaining to category A lands is t12,52,264.30 per acre and for category B lands the same is t10,61,899.50 Per acre'
25. Theappea|sstanddisposedofdecreeingthatfor such rands as have been put. in category A (Block A) the compensation stands decreed in sum of t12,52,264'30 per acre and for such lands which are in category B (Block A)' compensation decreed is t10,61'899'50 per acre'
26. lt is further decreed that on the enhanced compensation the appellants would be entitled to all statutory tl I lu. {g ( trl I l. 'l*t:: / rt.App.No.13/2007 Page 7 of[8] \V benefits as per statute as clarified in the decision reported as 93 (2001) DLT 569 Sunder Vs. tJOlexcept such appeals which were filed belatedly and delay was condoned; said appellants would not be entitled to interest for the period of delay. Proportionate cost is also decreed in favour of the appellants. --t-rt:strY (PRADEEP NANdRAJOG) JUDGE,r t' I \ xv,,/, JULY L[5], 2011 mm,,I.-'I /,u.. l\7 (- -! -i c LA.App.No,1312007 Page 8 of[8] q IN TI-IF HIGH COURT OF LA.APP, L3I2OO[7] ROSHAN LAL Through: Nemo.
VCTSUS uol & oRS Th rclug h: Nemo CORAM: DELHI AT NEW DELI-II.....Appellant.... Respondents )-1 v t \ n, V / rk l{or{'BLE MR.
JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG ORDER 1vo 20.12.20L[1] Perused the office note. lt is correct that in para 25,rl tire !udgment dated July 15, 20J-1 a typographical error has crepl, rn. Reference to'Block A' (after Category B) in the fourth Irne rs rncorrect. '2. lt is clarified that para 25 of the iudgment dated luly 15, 2011 shall read as under:- "?5. The appeals stand disposed of decreeing that for such lands as lrave been put in category A (Block A) the conrpensation stands decreed in sum of t12,5?-,264.30 per acre and for such lands which are in category B (Block B), compensation decreed is {10,61,899,50 per acre.".. "i*l PRADEEP hlAt\!DRAJ0G, J.