Full Text
,1 / s-L2 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
LA.APP. 593/2008
UDAI SINGH (DECD) THRU LRs .....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.
ORDER o/o L5.07.20LL For orders see LA.APP.L3l20O7.
-fl-i JULY L5, 20LL mm PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
2011:DHC:13807 I i HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 75h tulv 20iI
Appellan
Through: Mr. S.K.Rout & Mr.N.S.Dalal, Advocates
Roshan Lal ( f- rV.;
Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Standing ' Counsel (LA), GNCT Delhi with Mr.Sachin Nawani and
Mr Siddharth panda Advocates for . R-1 AND LA.APP. L4I2OO7, LA.APP . L5I2OO7, LA.APP, L6I2OO7, LA.APP: s67 t2008 lA.App.58212008, LA.App.583 l2oOB, LA.APP.5 8412008, LA,App.585 l2o}8, LA.App.s 8sl2oo8, LA.APP.590l2oo8,,,LA.App.593l2OO8, LA.App.59712008, LA.App.5 9812008, LA.App.6 0412009, LA.App.606/2009.
(Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 12.09.1992 & Award
No.5/DCW2000-01, 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? 'l,/ |,, I !: *l:i..'' LA.App.No.l3/2007 Page I of[8].[4]
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAIOG. l. (Oral)
1. Above captioned appeals pertain agricultural lands comprised in the revenue Baprola. Acquisition commenced pursuant dated L[2].8.1997 issded under Section Acquisition Act.
2. As Per Acquisition Collector A and Block B. He iands at t[2],08,383/per bigha.
3. Land owners sought reference under Section 18 of tfte 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, 31.8.2006, 19.9.2006, 22.9.2006, 29.g.2006 and 30.10.2006.
5. I would note that all orders have been passed by the same Judge. !t 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 dffferent pieces of evidence has been considered in different orders, and further with respect to the same evidence, to acquisition of estate of village to a notification 4 of the Land award No.5/DCW2000-01, the Land categorized the acquired lands into Block determined fair markbt value of Block A per bigha and Block B lands at {1,77,083/- 'I I ft !i *i/ rt I ta I I I.l I l I I !,; t I rh I t t t T, I,t tl I l"i,,k[4] I I I. t I a i I I T l I l i LA.App.No.l312007 t! 'ii al il \9,t I / different reasoning are to be found in different orders' lt has on|ymadethejourneyofthisCourta|itt|e|onger. T.TheReferenceCourthasenhancedthe compensation to t[2],L[7],3741- per bigha for Block A land and t[1],86,123.38 per bigha for Block B land' A perusal of the various decisions would show, and indeed learned counsel for the parties so concede, th.e learned Trial Judge was seized with 3 sa|e deeds dated 5.L[2].1996, 5.8.1.996 and 19.5.].987, exhibited as Ex.PW-1/1, Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex'PW-1/3 in LAc " No.17g 12004. Exhibit marks in'other referencei would be different. The learned Reference court also discussed an ""'-i- ag.reement to ''sell dated 17.8.1996, Ex.PW-L/4 in LAC No.178/2004. S.Thus,forpurposesoftheinstantdecisionreference 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'
9. Ex.PW-l/lpertainstolbighaand3biswaof|and sold in the revenue estate of village Nilothi' Ex'PW-],lz pertains to 1 bigha land sold in village Mundka and Ex'PW-1/3 pertainstol.bighalandso|dinvi||ageNajafgarh. l0.Thereasoningofthe|earnedReferenceCourtin 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 land 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' Page 3 of[8] t
11. tpansaction and there was no source of income. Different reasons have been given by the learned.\!t, il lil ril:l lt \f il:11;il }I i! il il it 't.I ti rli.[1] lE ll ll It tl 1f 'tl rt ll..,'il ',jl Il. \:{t,f I I I,l.l,.I i I t I j I.;;,[1] -:, ),. Reference Court not to rely upon the agreement to sell, Ex.PWl/y' whereunder for the date 17.8.1996, 12 bigha and 10 biswa of land in village Baprola was agreed to be sold for T24 lacs per acre 1-2. The reasoning of thg. learned Reference Court,. cumulatively read; witi reference to hues of the view in the various impugned orders is:-
(i) The stated part sale consideration in sum of T[6] lacs was paid in cash.
(ii) The buyer did not enforce the agreement to sell and.the parties settled for the amount to be refunded in sum of {8.[5] lacs in cash. a student at the time of the evidence of his having any
(iii) The purchaser was
(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 of land in village Baprola. L[4], While enhancing the compensation, tlie 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 I I ld,r t' li \: \Fr' T,I I: i LA.App.No.l3/2007 Page 4 of[8] compensation by giving price rise @ 12% 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 " w€ proceed from the city of Delhi towards the township of Rohtak along NH-10, village Mundka is crossed; the lands of villdge 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-10 crosses Daya Basti, Najafgarh road branches out; the point forming a ti
16. L[7]. ln between Najafgarh road and NH-10, the space between the 'v' has various villages. The village of Nirothi, Baprola, Mundka and Bakarwala are located in the said space. Standing on Najafgarh road and looking straight towards the North, 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 villagb Mundka and these lands would abut NH-10. In other words the locationat advantage of lands in t village Mundka would be that they abut NH-i.0. 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.l3/2007 fi,'l \i \{l,l i f 't i I,l rf Page 5 of[8] V and I 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 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 totaiity and has failed to appreciate " that uitlages 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 L biswa respectively, were sold under the sale deeds Ex'PW-U[1], Ex.PW-1 12 and Ex.PW-1/3. 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 so catled and not a sample properly so called' 20, Thus, not for the reasoning of the |earned " Reference Court, but for my reasoning hereinbefore noted' I hold that it would be unsafe to determine the market value of agripultural lands in village Baprola with reference to the said 3 sale deeds. 2L. As regards the agreement to sell Ex.PW-U[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 village BaProla I i I,l I ! t' I t,.l.'l I I.t ti a. !" -r)-\, lt! I ta Page 6 of[8] t( 22t Land
24. LA.App.N o.TsaaOOS lamna Vs' lJOl & Ors" pertaining to a notification dated 25 '2'1997, fair market lands in village Mundka was determined acre and for category B lands the same {9,65,361.60 Per acre.
23. Ihavea|rea"dyhe|dhereinabovethatthetopo|ogy of the area would entitle equivalence of agricultural lands in village Mundka with village Bakarwala as also the instant village, BaProla. Since categorization of the lands has not been In mY decision dated 8'7 '20L1' Acquisition APPeals, lead deciding a batch of matter being value of category A at tl[1],97,L6210 Per was determined at I t, J, \ I ad I lr I f...l{. I.l I I I qilestioned, 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 L0% increase in the va|ue of the land, commencing 25.2.1997, being the notification with which I was concerned in Iw's case (supra), instant notification being L2'8'L997 ' the increased fair market value of land pertaining to category A lands is T12,52,264.30 per acre and for category B |ands the same is t10,6L,899.50 Per acre'
25. Theappealsstanddisposedofdecreeingthatfor such|andsaShavebeenputincategoryA(B|ockA)the / -!:^-:ed in sum of t12 '52'264'30 Per Eompensation stands decre 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 de,creed that on the compensationtheappe||antswouldbeentit|edtoa|| LA.APP.N o.1312007 enhanced statutory. Page 7 of[8] benefits as per statute as clarified in the decision reported as 93 (2001) DLT 569 Sunder Vs. UOlexcept such appeals which were fiied 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. ^^ _.) '-fT f\r/'-S-qL:s9l \\
JUDGE JULY 15, 2011 mm 'tl ij, \f.t t I._ {r Jt a I I $t\r' t,a: LA.App.No.7312007 Page 8 of[8] lpt * IN }{fi HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI * LA.APP. L3I2AO[7] ROSHAN LAL.....Appellant I-hrough: Nemo., VCTSUS r..tot & oRS Through: Nemo.... Respondents.,j coRAM v Hf)n'J'BLF MR.
JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG I ' ORDER.-f i,/e 20. 12 Jor.l. PcrusecJ 'Llre office note. lt is correct that in para 25 cf ilre judgmeiri tJaied July 15,20L[1] a typographical error has l.rept in Refer-ence to 'Block A' (after Category B) in the fourth iirre is rncorrect,;!, lt is clarified that para 25 of the judgment dated. july 15, 2011 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 <1?-,52,264.30 per acre and for such lands which are r-r in category B (Block B), compensation decreed is:,[1] {10,61,899.50 per acre.".-a ' *,: *).,"{',:,] PRADEEP l\Al\!DRA.IOG, J" NECEMEEFT 20, ZOLL rk