Full Text
LA.APP. 72/2010
NARESH KUMAR (DECEASED)
THROUGH LRS Appellants
Through: Nemo
Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate, • Mr.Ramesh Ray, Advocate and
Mr.Ashish Tanwar, Advocate for UOl AN CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NAN DRAJOG
03.06.2011 Yesterday i.e. on 2.6.2011 a batch of Land Acquisition
Appeals, lead matter being LA.APP.No.489/2008 Ch/ran// La! Vs.UOI &
Anr. Pertaining to agricultural lands in village Ghevra which were acquired pursuant to the notification dated 6.2.2003 were decided by me in which fair market value of land as of said date i.e. 6.2.2003 was worked out @ 4,03,425/- per bigha.
Instant appeal stands disposed of directing that the appellants would be entitled to compensation @ 4,03,425/- per bigha for their lands. They would be entitled to solatium and interest as per statute as clarified in the decision of the Supreme Court reported as
93 (2001) DLT 569 Sunder Vs. Un/on of/nd/a and as interpreted in
LA.APP.No.193/2006 Pratap S/ngh (throucihLRs.) Vs. UO!& Ors.
Appellants would be entitled to proportionate costs.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
JUNE 03, 2011 rk 2011:DHC:11907 ____ / $-18-23 & 75
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision 2nd !unell ± LAAPP 489/2008
• CHI.RANJI LAL ' ..... Appeflant
Through: Mr.Sbya.m Sunder,Ad)ocate.
•
- • Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddrañd Mr.Ashish
• •
Tanwar, Advocates fo UOL Msindrani Ghosh & Ms.Shobhna Takiar, Advocates for DDA.. •
• APP.1089/2008., ' ••
• •: SH.NET RAM • • , Appellant
• • :', Through: Mr.5.Chaturvedj and Mr.R.S.Dalal, •
Advocates.
I
UOI.&ANR. :•
• ....: Respondents
Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar and Mr.Ashish
• •"
Tnwar, Advocates for UOI.
Ms.Indrani Ghosh & Ms.Shobhna Takiar, • • • •• Advocates, for DDA. •
- • •. •
•
• SH.HANS RAJ &ORS; Ap'ellànt
• :•. • ': • / Through: Mr.S.Chaturvedi and.Mr.R.S.DaIal, • •
• Through: Mr.Sahjay Poddarand Mr.Ashish
• ••. • • .•. Tarlwar,AdvocatesforUOl. •
Ms.lndrani Ghosh & Ms..S'hobhna Takiar;
• '• • • • • • Advocates for D[)A. • H • pagelofs
• .•• • ••• •
LA APP 109 JL/2008 RAJ SINGH & ORS Appellants
Through: Mr.S.Chaturvedi and Mr.R.S.DaIal,
Through: . Mr.Sanjay Poddar and Mr.Ashish Tanwar, Advocates for UOl. lV1s.lndran Ghosh & Ms.Shobhna Takiar, • .
. Advocates for DDA.
- VINOD MITTAL • Appellant
• . Through: Mr,S.Chaturvedi and Mr.R.S.Da!al, /
•:
Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar and Mr.Ashish
• . .1 • • . • Tanwar, Advocates for UOI.
• . . . • Ms.lndrani Ghosh & Ms.Shobhna Takiar, Advocates for DDA. •
• • SEEMADEVl BANSAI • Appellant
Through: Mr.S.Chaturvedi and Mr.P.S.Dalal,
• • • Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar and Mr.Ashish
• • .• Tanwar, Advocates for UOD.
- • Ms.lndrani Ghosh& Ms.Shobhna Takiar, / • • Advocates for DDA.
•
• LA.APP.212/2011
• • • HARQ DUTT& ORS. Apellants. •
• • Through: . Mr.S.Chaturvedi ahd Mr.R.SDalal, Advocates, • . . • . . page2ofs
•
• Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar and Mr.Ashish
Tanwar, Advocates for UOI.
• MsJndrani Ghosh & Ms.Shobhna Takiar, -, Advocates for DDA.
•
•
Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
• •.. to see the
ORDER
• To be referred to Reporter or not?
• Whether the judgment should be reØOrted in the Digest?
• :
'.PRAOEP NANDRAIOG, L (Oral)
1, Vide impugned deciions the Reference Court has held that the appellants are not entitled to ariy enhancement of the
•
• - compensation assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector.
2 The appeals relate to lands in vbllage Ghewra, whicn were he subject matter of acquisition pursuant to.,a notification dated • 62.2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act
1894. •.
3. In the decision dated 19J[2].2008,deciding a batch of Land • Acquisition Appeals, • lead matter being LA.APP.No.193/2006 S Pratap 5/ngh (Thru LRs vs. UQI & Ors, pertaining to lands in the revenue estate of village Tikri Kalan and village Ghewra; holding that the 2 lands were of equivalent nature, and I note that the 2 lands are situated on the either side of a railway line, the Division Bench assessed the, rnarket.valde of the land in village • • • • • • ••/ •• • •.. • •..':: C it Tikri Kalan, as of 1611.,1995.@2,1,160/- per bigha for Block-A land and pertaining to a. notification under Section 4 of the Land AcquisftiOn Act dated 11.6.1996, had determined. the compensation for Block-A land at U,35,8151- per bigha.
4. Thereafter, with reference to village Tikri Kalan, pertaining to a notification issed under Section 4 of the Land AcqLlisition Act 1894 on 17.12.2002, the Division Bench determined the compensation at 4,02 1850I- per bigha on the following reasoning:- "Since we have revised the market value in respect of the aforesaid Award at 2,35,815I- for BlockA and • 1,90,156/- for BlOck-B, further enharcement has to be given on. these rates for the period from 17.11.1995 to 17.12.2002. However, at the same time, we are of the view that in these cases enhancement @12% p.a. should not be given because of the reason that in some of these areas the market value of the land had even gone d.ovvn. Therefore, taking holistic vievv of the matter and balancing the upward and downward trends, we a.re.of the opinion that interest of justice would. be subserved if enhancement is granted @10% p.a.". Itbe noted that in the instant cases, lam concerned with a otification dated 62,2003 which is 50 days. after the notifiation dated 17.12.2002, which was discussed by the Division Bench in •para 49 of its deciionj relevant extract whereOf is reproduced herein above. A perusal of the decision of the' Division Bench would' Cveal that in para 42, pertaining to the.notification dated 16.11.1995 it had determined the rate R[2],15J60/- per bigha and applied 12% enhancement per annum, in para 45, with • page 4.of[8] / •:'' •. ieference to the date 16.1'L.1995 and the figure of Z 2,15,160I- •stood enhanced to 2,35,815/- pertaing to a notificatiOn dated 11.6.196. It is thus apparent Uiat in the relevant extract of para 49, hereinabove extracted, there is an ob'ious typographic error. If in the second line extracted herein above, he figure has to be 2,35,815/-, then the date in the 4th line has to be 1]. 6 1996 and not.17.11.1995. Vice versa, if the date in the 4th line has to be taken as 17.11.1995; the sun in second linehas to be taken at 2,15,160/.
8 The error by the Division Bench has resulted it is 'apparent, 'in a higher sum being worked out at 4,02850/- per bigha and for, which I am told necessary applications seeking review/correction have been liled before the Division Bench 9.' The D r ivision Benh would obviously' do the necessay corection, however, as far as this Court IS: concerned, it is the reasoning which is relevani and not computation thereof. The.reasoning of the Division Bench would be that as of 17.11.1995 therharket value assessed wouid be 2,15,160/- per bigha and the same would stand enhanced to 2,35,815I- per bigha as of 11.6.1996.. The further reasonin.g of the Di\fision Bench which binds this Court would be the firding that there was initially a steeper / percentage rise in the value of the land which subsequently fell The Division Bench held that till the year 1996 the increase was 12% per annum and thereafter it was. 10% per annum. If I was to apply the aforesaid logic of the Division Bench, vvhich binds me, treating the fair compensation assessed at page5of[8] L35,815/-er bighaasof 11..1996 or conversely taking the figue to be 2,15,160/- as of 17.11.1995, compensation as of 6.2.2003 would require to be worked out in view, of th periLdye increase neici aarnssbie by the Division Bench. • 13. If I assess the compensation with respect to the date 17 11 1995, 1 will have to cake the base figure of?2,15 i60I and fij enhance it by 12% for one year and thereafter 10% per annum If I take the figure of 2,35,815/- the base date would be 11 6 1996 and thereafter the percentage increase would be 30% per annum -
15 Learned counsel for the appellants would urge that the Government of Delhi, from time to time, enhanced the minimum rate of compensation which it offered to pay upon land being acquired and the same evidences that between the year 2001 ull the year 2008, the percentage increase per year was 16%
16 Learned counsel further submits that the reduction in the inciemental value of the land from 12% per annum to 10% per annum determined by the Division Bench, with respect to the notificabon dated 17 12 2002 has to be appreciated with reference to the sale deeds pertaining to village Tikri Kalan, and chscussion of the Division Bench shows that post 1996, in village. Tikp Kalan, the percentage increase had come down vis-a-vis the previous sale deeds, and whereas in the past the increase was 12%, post 1996 it came down to 10% Counsel seeks 10 urge that as regards village Ghewra there was no such evidence •...... All • •..
17 The pleas by learned counsel ror the appellants are Ali r2jected for the reason tne Governnint of Delhi issues th notfications pertaining to the minimum rate it would pay and tese rates apply to all agricuftural lands in Delhi irrespedive of the situaton, potentaIity etc The appellants are not seeking the rate as offered by the Government and thus cannot say that discarding the rates, the percentage increase offered by the H Government should bind the Government • As regards the second plea, we see no reasoning in the' Division Bench judgmen asis projected by learned counseL.that the Division wench found that in village Tikri Kalan the percentage increase in land price post 1996. came down to 10% per annurn and not viHage Ghewra. In fact the decision would show that the Division Bench treated lands in the two villages at par.
18. Thus, with respect to the price 2,35,815/- per bigha as of 1,6.1996 and giv.ig 10% inrease per annum the fair market value of the land of the appellants works out to 4,03425/- per bigha and thus we dispose of the appeals enhancing the compensation payable to the appellants to 4,03,425/- per bigha, We further decree that the appellants would be entitled to solatium and interest as per, statute and as clarified in the • • decision reported as 93 (2001) DLT 569 Sunder vs. VOl. 19, Proportionate cOsts are also awarded. 1'