Union of India v. Phool Singh & Ors.

1. Whether the Reporters of Ibcal papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to Reporter jor not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported In the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAIOG. I. I For orders see LA.APP.No.613/2008. JUNE 07, 2011 dk |(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) i JUDGE \N 2011:DHC:11851 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % ludament Reserved On: r' tune. 2011 • ludament Delivered On: tune. 2011 LAAPP.NO.613/2008 UOI&ANR....'...Appellants Through: Mr.Sahjay Ppcidar, Standing Counsel (LA), GNCT Delhi with Mr.Sachin Nawani, Advocate and Ramesh Ray, Advocates Versus!j KHAZAN SINGH & ORS.; Respondents Through: Mr.Deepak IKhosIa and Mr.lnder Singh, Advocates. | Mr.Ajay, Kuniar Verma, Standing Counsel • DA. i I And LA.APP. 1038/2008. LA.APP. 614/2008. LA.APP. 615/2008. LA.APP. 616/2008. LA.APP. 1040/2008. LA.APP. 617/2008, LA.APP. 618/2008. LA.APP. 619/2008. LA.APP. 620/2008. LA.APP. 622/2008. LA.APP. 1042/2008. LA.APP. 624/2008. LA.APP. 1043/2008, LA.APP. 625/2008. LA.APP. 629/2008. LA.APP. 630/2008. LA.APP. 1146/2008.

LA APP 636/2008, LA.APP. 637/2008, LA.APP. 638/2008. LA.APP. 1142/2008. LA.APP.641/2008, LA.APP.796/2Q08., LA.APP.1141/2008 & LA.APP 618/2009. I CORAM: ! HON'BLE MR.

JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

1. Whether the Reporters of local: papers may be allowed to see the judgment? !

2. To be referred to.Reporter or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAIOG.

I. LA.APP.613/2008 & connected

1. For the purposes of channelization of. river Yamuna a vast tracl< of land ad-measuring 35,00 hectares was proposed to be acquired and in respect whereof a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 23.6.1989. The notification pertained to lands in the revenue estate of village Khizrabad, Kilokari, Nangli Rajapur and Ghari Mendu.

2. Whereas lands of village Khizrabad, Kilokari and Nangli Rajapur were along the river bank of the river Yamuna as it flows past NH-24 towards the South till it crosses village Khizrabad, the lands of village Ghari Mendu were before the river crossed NH-24. ». i

3. Whereas the lands of! village Kilokari and Khizrabad were on the Western bank of the Iriver, the land of village Nangli Rajapur was on the Eastern bank. Aj 4. The land of village Ghari Mendu is on the Eastern bank of the river.

5. Vide judgment pronounced today the Land Acquisition Appeals pertaining to village Khizrabad, Kilokari and Nangli Rajapur •have been decided lead matter being LA.App.No.59/2007 Bed Ram 1/5. UO! & Ors. and as per the said decision fair market value of the land in said 3 villages pertaining to the notification dated 23.6.1989 has been held to be ^89,^00/- per bigha.

6. As per the said decision, keeping in view that the subject lands therein were prone to flooding, were low lying land along the banks of the river and could be called 'Flood Plain' land, the compensation assessed was with respect to the situational and character disadvantage suffered by the lands and even the annual price rise was determined at the bare minimum. I 7- With respect to the lands comprised in village Ghari LA.APP.613/2008 &connected Page 2of[4] Mendu, Sh.Sanjay Poddar learned counsel for the Union of India urged, that these lands are situated in East Delhi with hardly any development in and around the la,nd and thus cannot be equated with the Flood Plain land in the yillages Khizrabad, Kilokari and Nangli Rajapur. Learned counsel further submitted, that for said 3 villages, taking cue from the decision reported as Tindev & Ors. i/s. UP! & Ann 2000 (54) DRJ 384 the compensation was assessed at ?89,600/- per bigha by the Reference^ Court and a perusal of the decision in T/ncfev's case (supra) would show that the basis to work I out the compensation at ^35,000/-^ per bigha as of 10.5.1976 was n[2],500/- per bigha as of the year^ 1961 and in said year, for East Delhi the maximum rate fixed by this Court in the decision reported as Kesho Pass Vs. UP/ 44 (1991) DLT 375 was ?8,064/- I per bigha. Thus, learned counsel urged that the compensation assessed in the sum of ^90,102/- p^r bigha is excessive. 8- Since in the decisions pronounced today pertaining to village Khizrabad, Kilokari and Nangli Rajapur I have upheld the market value determined by the learned Reference Court for said villages (g) ^89,600/- per bigha by assigning the minimum value to the lands, I see no scope to further reduce the market value of the I lands in village Ghari Mendu and jby way of an illustration may simply state that on the poverty index, those who are listed as Below Poverty Line would have no scope for further subclassification as 'Below Poverty Line' -and 'Little Below Poverty Line'.; 9' I accordingly hold that; the fair market value of the I subject lands in village Ghari Meijidu as of 23.6.1989 would be ^89,600/- per bigha and not ^90,102/- per bigha worked out by the LA.APP.613/2008 &connected Page 3of 4 I ! i • learned Reference Court.

10. ' Accordingly, LA App.No.618/2009 filed by Badley seeking enhancement of compensation is dismissed.