Charan Singh v. Union of India

14. Dissatisfied with the assessment of the fair market value, the land owners sought reference under Section' 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and hence various references were made to the Reference Court.

15. After affording an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence, the Reference Court answered the references by. rejecting the categorization of the lands as per the award and granted a uniform compensation for the entire land. Adopting the minimum price for agricultural land issued by the Government on 09.08.2001, and granting an annual increase @11.5% per annum on the sum of ^15,70,000/-, the Court fixed the.market value of the land at ^19,20,568/- per acre as on 18.07.2003. Needless to state statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition. Act 1894 were granted on the enhanced compensation.

16. This decision has been challenged by the land owners as also the Government.

17. • A perusal of the decision of the Reference Court would reveal that the matter was argued on two counts. On the first count the land owners won and on the second count they lost. The first count on wliich they questioned the award'pertained,to classification of only

12.44 acre land' in Category 'A' and for which they relied.upon thevaluation given to the lands during consolidation proceedings which LA.APP.971/2008 &. connected matters i § took place in the year 1970-72. The second count pertained to the marl<et value of land and for which they relied upon two sale deeds Ex.PW-1/2 (in the reference sought by Raj Bal LAC No.226/1/2007 as per which 7 bigha 15 biswa land comprised in Khasra No.19/26 in the revenue estate of village Burari was sold by the recorded bhoomidars thereof Sh.Ram Kumar and Sh.Rajesh Kumar in favolir of Motor General Finance Ltd. on 9.12.1993 at a recorded sale consideration of ?39,17,000/-. Therefrom they urged that the fair, market value of agiicultural lands in village Burari have to be treated at ?39,17,000/per acre as of 9.12.1993 and desired that market value of their lands be enhanced as of the year 2003. •

18. I ma^y note that in the reference sought pertaining to the lands which weie acquired• pursuant to the notification dated 24.7.1998, this sale deed was pressed into^ aid by the land.owners therein as well.

19. The sale deed has -been rejected by the learned R^eference Couit pertaining to both sets of acquisition. Ishall be dealing with the reasoning of the learned Judge soon hereinafter.

20. Consolidation proceedings in both villages took.place under the provisions of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 [as extended to Delhi]. \

21. Since the consolidation proceedings in question were,, relied upon only pertaining to the agricultural lands in village Burari and record thereof alone was proved before the Reference Court, it may be noted that 93 sheets of the" consolidation record was proved as Ex.PW-4/1 in the reference sought by Raj Bal & Ors. and this was proved through the testimony of Sh.Rajender Prakash Kanugo who appeared, as PW-4 and the same records that during consolidationi land- in the village was assigned.16 annas, 12 annas, 10 annas, 8 annas,'6 annas and 4- annas. 22, I may highlight that as per the award No.2/LAC/N/G5-06 the subject lands are comprised in rectangle No.106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 112, 11j, 114, 115, 116, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 133, 134, 142 and

143. As per the award the lands jn all the rectangles save and except rectangle No.142 and 143 and only lands comprised in Khasra No.6, 15/1-2, 16 and 25 in rectangle 133 have been put in Category 'B' and the remainder in Category'A'.

23. The record of consolidation shows that the Land Acquisition Collector, notwithstanding having referred to have seen the record of consolidation, has not reflected the same correctly inasmuch as Ifind the following valuations given during consolidation. ' Rectangle NO. 127. Value in annas • 12 Rage 10 of 19 132 12 133... 12 134 12 142, 12 3)43 • - 12

24. I may highlight the patent absurdity in the. award 'wherein rectangle No.142 and 143 have been placed in Category 'A' which during consolidation were assigned value 12 anna ignoring that rectangle 115, 116, 125, 126 and 132 to 134 were also assigned the same value.

25. I shall be taking corrective action at the appropriate stage. But would "note at this stage that the learned Reference Court has somewhat undone the injustice by treating all lands in the same category of which finding the land owners are happy but the Government is aggrieved of.

26. " From the'facts noted hereinabove, the arguments of the rival parties can be discerned. As regards the Government it questions all lands in village Burari being put in the'same'category and also with regard to the enhancement given by the learned Reference Court. As regards the land owners they are aggrieved by the fact, that the market value of their lands was not determined with reference to the sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 i.e. the sale-deed dated 9.12.1993 under which 7 bigha and 15 biswa of land in village Burari was sold for ^39,17,000/-.

27. I may note that a number of documents were proved by various parties before the learned Reference Court, but I need not trouble the reader of my decision with the same as neither counsel relied upon them during arguments for the obvious reason the sales reflected in the sale deeds post 2003, being after the acquisition being notified, t t could not be treated as reflective of the fair marl<et value of the lands as of either the year 1998 or of the year 2003.

28. Questioning the adoption of the sale price as per Ex.PW-1/2 and justifying the rejection thereof by the learned Reference Court, Sh.Sanjay Poddar argued that Motor General Si Finance apparently entered'into 2 agreements to sell, both dated 15.10.1999 being Mark 'A'and 'B' for a consideration of ^42,90,000/-. Learned counsel urged that the speculative value reflected in the sale deed dated 9.12.1993 is apparent inasmuch as the said land was agreed to be sojd 5 years and 10 months thereafter for a sum of ^42,90,000/- i.e. a meager price rise of?3,73,000/- which would giye an appreciation of less than 1% in the total period of 5 years and 10 months as against various decisions holding that during this period the price rise of agricultural land in Delhi was around 10% progressive, in some and flat in others depending upon the situational advantage/disadvantage of the subject lands. By way of illustration to make good the point, learned counsel argued that doing reverse calculation, if^42,90,000/-. was the value as-of 15.10.1999, depressing the same by reducing it'10% each year even on a flat rate, the value as of 1993 would, be arou-nd ^4,00,000/- for 7 bigha and 15 biswa'land. Counsel highlighted'that this would translate to a value of ?1,80;000/- per bigha, However, counsel' was quick to add this may not be taken as his admission as the argument was only to illustrate a point. Learned counsel highlighted.the testimony of Sh'.Arun Mitter P\N-3 a director of the company who appeared in LAC No.140/1/206 and admitted that he was not familiar with the topology of the area and had no proof of any earnings from the land during the period it remained with the company and virtually admitted- not having put the "land to any use. Counsel stated that his assertion that flowers were grown therein by a Mali had' to be ignored inasmuch as when questioned who was the iviali, who employed him and in what manner salary was paid to him, Sh.Arun Mitter disclosed his ignorance. Counsel also highlighted that one land owner Sh.Laxmi Chand who" was a petitioner along with Charan Singh &Ors. in LAC No.138/1/06 admitted land being used'as a godown- i.e. a commercial purpose. Learned counsel further submitted that on: the issue of the land price, Ex.RXl being, the sale deed dated 22.11.2003- executed in favour of Misha Tyagi showed that the lady had purchased agricultural land i.n village Burari on 22.11.2003 for ^6,32,000/- being 5 bigha and 19 biswa of land and the sale deed Ex.RX[2] dated 2.1.2004 showed that Raj Bal, his wife Usha Tyagi and his sister-in-law Shobha had purchased 2 bigha, 10 biswa land in the same village for ^2,65,651/-. Therefrom counsel, sought to justify the inflated figure in the sale deed relied upon by the land owners.

29. Pertaining to the sale deed executed in favour of Motor General Si Fjnance it certainly assumes importance that the company, speaking through its Director, gave no convincing reasons of having put the land to any use. The claim that flowers were grown and were consumed in house is most uninspiring inasmuch as not even the ' name of the Mali employed could be provided by Sh./Arun Mitter. No proof of any salary paid to the Mali was adduced. The speculative nature of the transaction is self-evident from the, fact that nearly 6 years thereafter the company ostensibly sold the land at a meager price rise of ^3,73,000/- which gives not even 1% increase in the value ofthe land spread over nearly 6 years, to be exact 5 years and 10 months. That Arun Mitter admitted having no idea of the tdpology of the land in the area' would show that the company was not an informed buyer and in respect of sale of land it is settled law that the LA.APP.971/2008 &connected matters /., Page 13 oP 19' test is tine price which an informed buyer would pay to a willing seller and to be an informed buyer there must be evidence that the buyer has l<nowledge of the topology of the area, the'land available for sale and such other factors showi.ng that the buyer was an informed buyer as observed by the Supreme Court in the decision reported ess Mohammad Raofuddin Vs. Land Acquisition Officer 2009 (14) SCC 367..

30. I accordingly hold that the sale deed-in question would not iDe a good guiding factor on which 'fair market value of the''lands in '• question has to be determined and would likewise even reject the sale deed relied upon by Sh.Sanjay Poddar as the same relate to small parcels of land and. cannot be treated as a.good representative sample of the whole.

31. Thus, pertaining to the subject lands I hold that the basis to determine the fair market value, has to be the Government Officer Orders fixing m.inimum price at ^11,20,000/- per acre as of 1.4.1998 and ^15,70,000/- as of 9.8.2001, which, treating ^'11,20,000/- as the' base figure and the date 1.4;1998 gives us a progressive price rise of about 11% per annum and this I highlight conforms to a percentage increase which is being given by the Courts as a thumb rule..

32. On the issue of the situational location of the land, there is no evidence that it is near developed colonies in Delhi.

33. In the decision-reported as 2011 IV AD (5C) 383 Om Pralosh vs. • State of t-iarvana & Ors. it was observed that several facets have to be kept in view while determining the potential value of the acquired land'and some of these would include:- I • (i) the situation of the acquired land vis-a-vis the city ior the town or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religious or.any other LA.APP.971/2008 &connected matters ' Page14 of 19 kind of importance or iDecause of its explosive population;

(ii) tine suitability of the. -acquired land for putting up the.

(iii) possibility 'of obtaining.water and electric supply for occupants of buildings to be put up on that land;

(iv) absence of statutory impediments or the like for using the acquired land for building purposes;.' •(v) existence of highways, public roads, layouts of building plots or developed residential extensions in the vicinity or close proximity of the acquired land;

(vi) benefits or advantages or educational institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land-which may become available to the occupiers of buildings, if built on the acquired land;

(viii) and lands around the acquired land or the acquired land itself being in demand for building purposes, to 'specify a few.

34. In view of the discussion hereinabove I find complete justification in, the reasoning of the learned Reference Court pertaining to lands which were acquired pursuant to the notification dated 24.7.1998 as also the classification of the lands into 3 blocks and corresponding values assigned thereto and hence I hold that LA-.APP.347/2007, LA.APP.[3] 54/2 007, LA.APP.'369/2007, LA.APP.21/2008, LA.APP.840/2010, LA.APP.344/2007," LA.APP.349/2007, LA.APP.355/2007, LA.APP.386/2007, LA.APP.274/2008, LA.APP.342/2007, LA.APP.345/2007, LA.APP.351/2007, LA.APP.362/2007, LA.APP.397/2007, LA.APP.631/2010, LA.APP.343/2007, LA.APP.346/2007, k \ LA.APP.348/2007, LA.APP.353/2007, LA.APP.356/2007, LA.APP.363/2007, LA.APP.364/2007 and LA.APP.387/2007 are required to be dismissed.

35. As regards the remaining Land Acquisition Appeals aid cross objections filed, I hold that the Reference Court gave good reasons to disagree with the classification resorted to and the price assigned thereto by the Land Acquisition- Collector, but find the ' Pxe-ference Court h,aving committed one error,.in that it has assigned one market value to the entire acquired land. •36. • It is no doubt true that the Land Acquisition Collector had 1eferi ed to the subject lands as 'Do Fasif, but with re'ference to the record of the' consolidation proceedings, and as discussed by me hereinabove, it is apparent that different rectangles had different values ranging between 4 anna to 16 anna and in respect of the lands with, which I am concerned, •noting that they are comprised in' rectangle No.106, 107, 108,. 109,'110, 112, 113," 114, 115, 116, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 133, 134, 142 and 143, to which value of 4 annas was assigned to rectangle No:l28, 6 annas to rectangle No.l07, 112 and 114, 8 annas to rectangle No.106, 127 and 129, 10 annas to rectangle No.108, 109, 110 and 113 and 12 annas to the remainder, it would be.just and proper to classify lands acquired in village Burari in 2 categories. Lands Valued at 10 annas'and 12 annas would be in Category 'A' and the remainder in Category 'B'. 37, I accordingly hold that lands comprised ip rectangle No.108, 109, 110, 113, 115, 116, 125, 126, 132, 133, 134, 142 and 143 would be treated as in Category 'A' and lands comprised in' rectangle No.106, 107, 112, 114, 127 and 129 would be treated in Category 'B'. Needless to state lands comprised-in'va.ri-ous Khasra Nos. relatable to the rectangle in question would so stand categorized. LA.APP.971/2008 &connected matters Page 16 of19

38. This concludes one issue of categorization and which unfqrtunately for the land owners has resulted in the relatable cross objection succeeding on the point that not all lands have to be placed in the same category.

39. On the issue of the fair market value of the land, as noted hereinabove the learned Trial Judge has adopted the price notified by the. Government at ^15,70,000/- per acre as of 9.8.2001 and has enhanced it by 11,5% per annum to reach the figure of ^19,20,568/per acre and this price I hold, is the fair market price for lands in Category 'A' detailed in para 37 above. I reduce the said figure by 10% for Category 'B' lands and thus hold that the fair market value •for Category 'B' lands would be fl[7],28,512/-.

40. 1conclude by directing that LA.APP.347/2007, LA.APP.349/2007, LA.APP.354/2007, LA.APP.369/2007, LA.APP.21/2008 LA.APP.840/2010, LA.APP.344/2007, LA.APP.348/2007, LA.APP.363/2007., LA.APP.355/2007, LA.APP,386/2007, LA.APP.274/2008, LA;APP.342/2007, • LA.APP.345/2007, LA.APP.353/2007, LA.APP.364/2007 and • • LA.APP.351/2007/. LA.APP.362/2007, LA.APP.397/2007, LA.APP.531/2010, LA.APP.343/2007, LA.APP.346/2007, LA.APP.3-56/2007, LA.APP.387/2007 are dismissed, costs. leave the parties to bear their own

41. • LA.APP.971/2008- & CM No.4135/2009, LA.APP.1045/2008, LA.APP.1101/2008 CM 4148/2009; LA.APP.1228/2008 & CM No.7778/2009,, LA.APP.1232/2008,.LA.APP.1237/2008 CM No.11653/2011, LA.APP.1254/2008, LA.APP.1261/2008 & CM No.2902/2009, LA.APP.1262/2008 & CM No.11651/2011, LA.APP.1269/2008 " & CM No.7847/2009, LA.APP.1270/2008, LA.APP.1271/2008 & CM No.7834/2009, LA.APP.1272/2008 & CM No.11648/2011, LA.APP.1274/2008 & CM No.11580/2011, LA.APP.23/2009,, LA.APP.49/2009,. LA.APP.75/2009, LA.APPs87/2009 & CM-, No.7472/2009,. LA.APP.91/2009, LA.APP.131/2009., LA.APP.151/2009, LA.APP.195/2009, LA.APP.207/2009, LA.APP;225/2009, LA.APP.239/2009, LA.APP.150/2009, LA.APP.160/2009 LA.APP.184/2009, LA.APP.204/2009, LA.APP.212/2009, LA.APP.226/2009 LA.APP.236/2009, LA.APP.248/2009, LA.APP.287/2 009, LA.APP.290/2009, LA.APP.296/2009 LA.APP.163/2009, LA.APP.205/2009, & LA.APP.221/2009, & LA.APP.235/2009,- LA.APP.297/2009, LA.APP.317/2009, LA.APP'.641/2009, LA.APP.3/2010, LA.APP.4/2010, LA.APP.5/2010, LA.APP.31/2010, LA.APP.33/2010, • LA.APP.30/2011, LA.APP.31/2011, LA.APP.32/2011, LA.APP.37/2011, LA.APP.1092/2008 & CM No.7843/2009, LA.APP.1097/2008 & CM • Mo.4643/2009, LA.APP.1098/2008 & CM No.11674/2011, LA.APP.1099/2008[1] & CM No.7840/2009, LA.APP.1100/2008 & CM No.9986/2011, LA.APP.1118/2008, •LA.APP.1227/2Q08, LA.APP.1/2009 Sc CM No.11671/2011, LA.APP.2/2009 & CM No.3003/2009. LA.APP.26/2009 & CM ' No.3006/2009, LA.APP.28/2009 & CM No.414^/2009, LA.APP.92/2009 & CM No.7770/2009, LA.APP.126/2009, LA.APP.152/2009 & CM No,9953/2011, Sc CM No.116.85/2011, LA.APP.192/2009, •, LA.APP.206/2009 & CM LA.APP.218/2009 & CM & CM No.11680/2011, LA.APP.238/2009, LA.APP.285/2009,,LA..APP.288/2009, LA.APP.292/2009, & CM' No,11597/2011, LA.APP.193/2009, CM NO-.10067/2011, CM No.10071/2011, LA.APP.237/23009, LA.APP.313/2009, LA.APP.170/200-9, LA.APP.194/2009, No.9956/2011, i,No.7878/2010, LA.APP.234/2009, LA.APP.240/2009,' •LA.APP.286/2009, LA.APP.289/2 0'09, LA.APP.294/2009, LA.APP.312/2009, LA,APR. 314/2009, LA.APp-319/2009, LA.APP.322/2009 I, LA.APP.377/2009, LA.APP;382/2009, LA.APP.522/2009, JUNE 07, 2011 mm / dk LA.APP.316/2009, LA.APP.320/2009, & CM No.11683/2011, LA.APP:379/2009, LA.APP.387/2009, LA.APP.640/2009, LA.APP.69/2010, LA.APP.431/2010, LA.APP.686/2010, LA.APP.33/2011, LA.APP.50/2011, LA.APP.1286/2011 & CM Mo.11686/2011, LA.APP.1287/2008 & CM No.2910/2009, LA.APP.88/2009 & CM No.11677/2011, LA.APP.368/2009, LA.APP.44/2010, LA./-\PP.296/2011 &CM No.11597/2011 and LA.APP.34/2011 stand disposed of in terms of paras 37 and 39 above requiring a. decree to be drawn with reference to whether the iands are comprised in such Khasras'as faii in such rectangles which have been placed in Category 'A' or in Category 'B'. Needless to state such appeals and cross objections which relate to, such lands as would be in Category 'A' stand dismissed. Appeals filed by the land owners and also cross objections filed by the land owners which relate to lands placed in Category 'B' aie dismissed.' Appeals filed by the Union of India'as also cross objections filed by Union of India pertaining to lands in Category 'B' would stand allowed in terms of para 37 and 39 above.

41. Needless to state impugned decrees would stand modified accoidingly. I leave the parties to bear their own costs. LA.APP.318/2009, LA.APP.321/2009, LA.APP.323/2009, LA.APP.381/2009, LA.APP.444/2009, LA.APP.642/2009, (PRADEEP MANDRAIOG) JUDGE ' ^