Full Text
LA.APP. 590/2008
CHARAN SINGH & ORS. .....Appellants
Through: Mr.S.K.Rout, Ms.Sukhda Dhamija and Ms. Dimple Dhamija, Advocates.
Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate for R-1.
Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA.
15.07.201r.
For orders see LA.APP.l3l2007.
-fi{ PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
JULY 15, 2011 mm 2011:DHC:13799 /-t| ! - !,1 il
\-r il il. il\ .l I I :I il it tl tf iI iI il
'! Ii '!l ll \E -t' t' d HIGH COURT OF DELHI Roshan Lal
Date of Decision: Lfh lullr 2071
Appetla 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 tA.npp. L4l2oo7, LA.App. Lsl20o7, LA.App, :
I t ,t I t ;l I f I I t ld ,, li '1 L.\.r- ' .I.l f
-i li I I I l )
! I I t I I ld ,, li a. s6712008 LA.APP.5 8212008, LA.App.58412008, LA.App.58512008, 4AA.App.s90/2008, LA.App.593lz00l, " LA.App.598/2008, LA.App.6 o4l2o\g, L6I2OO7, LA.APP.
LA.APP.s83/2008, LA.APP.S 8912008, LA.APP.5 97 12A08, LA.APP.606/2008.
(Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated'12.08.L997' & Award
No.5/DCW2000-01, Village Baprola)
ORDER
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 Page I of[8] a, 0:':
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PMDEEP NANDM|oG. l. (oral)
1. Above captioned appeals peftain to acquisition of agricultural lands comprised in the revenue estate of village Baprola. Acquisition commenced pursuant to a notification dated:^2.8.Igg[7] issried under section 4 0f the Land A/quisition Act. 2,AsperawardNo.5/DCW2000-0].,theLand Acquisition Collector categorized the acquired lands into Block A and Block B. He determined fair market value of Block A tands at t[2],08,383/- per bigha and Block B lands at {1,77,0831' per 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 b'een decided are dated 25.8.2006, 28.8.2006, 29.8.2006, 30.8.2006, /:i.A.ZOO[6], 19.9.2000, 22.9.2006', 29.9.2006 and 30.10.2006.
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 Appellate Court is that evidence is scattered in various references and different pieces of evidence has been considered in different orders, and further'wilh respect to the same evidence' LA.App.No.l312007 { '1 t {r.,t I I r tr' a Page 2 of[8] v,il rl if $ \\t iI I t r I I I,l I I t * r[1] I.t ir I 'i i rtf 't a different reasoning are to be found in different orders' lt has on|ymadethejourneyofthisCourta|itt|e|onger.
7. The Reference Court has enhanced the compensationtot[2],L[7],374|.perbighaforB|ockAlandand {]-,86,123.38perbighaforB|ockBland.Aperusa|ofthe.variousdecisionswou|dshow,andindeedlearnedcounselfor the parties so concede, th.e learned Trial Judge was seized with 3sa|edeedsdated[5],L[2].1996,5.8.]-996and19.5.].987, exhibited as Ex.PW-ul, Ex.PW-L/2 and Ex'Pw-L/3 in LAc No.178/2004.Exhibitmarksinotherreferenceswou|dbe different. The learned Reference court also discussed an agreementtose||dated17.8.1996,Ex.PW.]./4inLAc No.17 8/2004. S.Thus,for,purposesoftheinstantdecisionreference is being made to the evidence led in LAC No'17812004' lt may be highlighted that the land owners, in different references were relying upon either or all the above 4 exhibits'.g.Ex.PW.l/lpertainstolbighaand3biswaof|and sord in the revenue estate of village Nilothi. Ex'Pw-I/2 per{ains to l bigha land sold in village Mundka and Ex'PW-1/3 pertainstolbighalandsoldinvi||ageNajafgarh. l0.Thereasoning,ofthelearnedReferenceCourtin various orders, refusing to place reliance upon the said sale.deeds, is that the contiguity of the 3 villages with village Bapro|awou|dbenogroundtotreatthepricgofthe|andin 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' Page 3 of[8] T,t ll, tl {!j.t[9] f tl t I: I; I I ! I "r !t t 't i,, t I I i I:.l i I 'f.t ri, rl I \!t t*_ /
11. Reference Court not to rely upon the agreement to sell, Ex'PW- 1/1 whereunder for the date 17.8.1996, 12 bigha and L0 biswa of land in.village Baprola was agreed to be sold for t24 lacs per acre. L[2]. The reasoning of the cumulatively read; wilh reference various impugned orders is:-
(i) The stated part sale consideration in sum of t[6] lacs was paid in cash.
(i, The buyer did not enforce the agreement to sell and tl-,re parties settled fo'r the amount to be refunded in sum of T[8].[5] lacs in cash.
(iii) The purchaser was a student at the time of the having any transaction and there was no evidence of his source of income.
(iv) 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, that the transaction is shrouded with suspicion and thus would not be a safe guiding index to determine the fair market value oI land in village Baprola L[4]. While enhancing the compensation, ttie learned Reference Court has adopted the price noted by the Government, 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.13/2007 Different reasons have been given by the learned learned Reference Court, to hues of the view in the Page 4 of[8] n \j I,t t' [. 'rf 't., I rl compensation by giving price rise @ l2o/o p.a. on the minimum price as notified. L[5]., 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 further show that Najafgarh road, leading to Delhi from Dhansa hits NH-10 near Daya Basti. To put it differently, as NH-LO crosses Daya Basti, Najafgarh road branches ou$ the point forming a,V"
16. rl /;",J ',.a \ 'l€. In between Najafgarh road and NH-L0, the space rEr between 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 Nofth, 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 vitlage Baprola would be near Najafgarh road, proceeding along a stiaight 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-L0. L[7]. In other words the locational advantage of lands 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 prodimate to Najafgarh road. Being towards Najafgarh road, lands in village Baprla are near the urbanized part of Delhi, 'r( I.( I I, &t LA.App.No.I312007 Page 5 of[8] l0 t' 'I '( t and l note that the residential colony of Vikas Puri abuts the agricultural lands of village Baprola
18. Thus, the reasoning of the learned Reference court " pertaining to not relying upon the sale deeds of villages Ni|othi, Mundka and Najafgarh does not a.ppeqr to be sound for thd 6ason 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-}/1' Ex.pw-l 12 and Ex.pw-l/3. The principles of a sampling would guide the court that to be a representative of the whole' a sample must bear a reasonable proximation to the whole and " if the sample is too meager, it would be a sample improperly socalledandnotasamp|eproper|ysocal|ed. 20./ Thus, not for the reasoning of the learned Reference Court, but for my reasoning. hereinbefore noted' I 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.,Asregardstheagreementtose||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 hereinabove, I hold that it would be most unsafe to rely'upon Ex.PW-1/4 to determine the fair market value of lands in villgOe BaProla. Page 6 of[8] rI In mY decision dated Acquisition APPeals, 8.7.20LL, deciding a batch of lead matter being Land LA.App.No.784l2OO5tamnaVs'lJOl&Ors"pertainingtoa notification date d 25'2'Lgg7' fair market value of category A |andsinvil|ageMundkawasdeterminedat{].].,97,1.6210per,acreandforcategoryBlandsthesameWaSdeterminedat T[9],65,361-.60 Per acre' " 23,Ihavea|readyheldhereinabovethatthetopo|ogy of,theareawou|dentit|eequiva|enceofagricu|tura||andsin vi||ageMundkawithvi|lageBakarwa|aasa|sotheinstant 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 notifiiation 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 Llo/o increase in the value of the land, commencing 25 '2'L997 ' being the notification with which l was concerned in lamna's case (supra), instant notification being L2'8'1997 ' the increased fair market value of land pertaining to cdtegory A landsistl[2],5z,264.3operacreandforcategoryBlandsthe same is t10,61,899'50'Per acre'
25. Theappealsstanddisposedofdecreeingthatfor such|andsaShavebeenputincategoryA(B|ockA)the."'o".sationstandsdecreedinSumoft12,52,264.30per acreandforsuchlandswhichareincategoryg.(B|ockA),. compensation decreed is {10'6L'899'50 per acre'
26. lt is further decreed that on the compensation the appellants would be entitled to LA.APP.No.1312007 enhanced all statutory Page 7 of[8] el I Y /' 'trd I a \..\t tl r?/ benefits as per statute as clarified in the decision repofted as 93 (2001) DLT 569 Sunder Vs. IJO|except 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..-r r-r*s_=leg/ \\l
JUDGE JULY 15, 2011 mm 'I LA.App.No.l312007 Page 8 of[8] g r- !. 'a IN THE HIGH COURT OF LA.APP. t3t2007 ROSHAN LAL DELI-II AT NEW DELHI.....Appellant Through: Nemo.
JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG ORDER o/o 20.12.2011 I Perused the office note. lt is correct that in para 25 of tlre ludgment clated july 15, 2011 a typographical error has crept in. Reference to'Block A' (after Category B) in the fourth Irrie is incorrect.
2. lt is clarified that para 25 of the judgment dated July 15,'20L[1] shall read as under:- "25. The appeals stand disposed of decreeing that for such lands as have been put in category A (Block A) the compensation stands decreed in sum of {12,52,264.30 per acre and for such lands which are in category B (Block B), compensation decreed is '{10,61,899.50 per acre." -r..,} - 1-* r'-.r':.-::<--l*tf. r ll 't PRADEEP NANDRAJOC, J. DECEMBER 20, TOLL rk