Mahavir v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER

23.12.2011 For orders see LA.APP No. 608 of 2009. TNIL GAUR) JUDGE December 23, 2011 rs Page 2 % + Reservedon: 8^'' November,2011 Pronouncedon: 23''''December.2011 LA. SHRl RAMESH KUMAR Through: Mr. Deepak Kliosla & Mr. Advocates. ..Appehant V.P. Ran a, versus UNIONOF INDIA &ORS. Respondents Through; Mr. Sanjay Podar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Ms. K.Kan:ioudi Kiran, Mr. Mohitrao Jadhav & Ms. Navhn Swain, Advocates. -1-LA APP.435/20IL LA.APP 608/2009.LA.APP129/2010,LA.APP 130/2010, LA.APP 176/20.10 & CM No. 12873/2011, LP^AFJL 177/2010! LA.APP 179/2010. LA./vPP 184/2010, LA.APP 214/2g]_(L LA.APP219/2Q10. LA.APP 229/2010. LA.APP233/2010, LAAPP 234/2010, LA.APP 235/2010. LA.APP 236/2010, LA.APP 237/2QJJL L7rXPF"l4072m0..^LA.APP241/2010~LA.APP 255/2010, LAAPP 256/2010& CM No. 12934/2011fcross obiectionslLA.APP 257/2010, r,A.APP258/2010.-LA. APP 259 /2010, LA.APP 271/2010, L/^APP 413/2010, LA.APP 414/2010. LA.APP 415/2010, LA.APP 416/2j)_10,. LA.APP 417/2010 & CM No.3584/2011 (cross objections), LA.APP 419/2010, LA.APP 425/2010. LA.APP 453/2010. LA.APP 546/2010, LA.APP 547/2010, LA.APP 548/2010, LA.APP 549/2010, LA.APP 550/2010, LA.APP '551/2010, LA.APP 552/2010, LA.APP 511/:M3i(L LA.APP 554/2010, LA.APP 555/2010. LA.APP 556/2010, LA_J^ 557/2010, LA.APP 558/2010, LA.APP 559/2010. LA.APP 560/2010, LA.APP 561/2010, LA.APP 562/2010, LA.APP 563/2010, LA.APP 564/2010, LA.APP 565/2010. LA.APP 567/2010. LA.APP 568/2010, LA.APP 569/2010, LA.APP 570/2010, LA.APP 571/2.010, LA.APP 572/2010, LA.APP 573/2010. LA.APP 574/2010, LA.APP 575/2010, LA.APP 576/2010. LA.APP 77.0/2011. LA.APP 771/2010, LA.APP 772/2010. LA.APP 773/2010. LA.APP 774/2010. LA.APP 775/2010, Page 1 \0 f/ti' h'A' • U' LA.APP 805/2010; LA.APP 822/2010, LA.APP 824/2010 & CM No. 10333/2011 (cross-obiection), LA.APP 864/2010, LA.APP 901/2010, LA.APP 902/2010, LA.APP 962/2010, LA.APP 1014/2010, LA.APP 1015/2010, LA.APP 1016/2010, LA.APP .1027/2010, LA.APP 1032/2010, LA.APP 1035/2010, LA.APP 1037/2010, LA.APP 1038/2010 & CM No. 12952/2011 rcross-obiections), LA.APP 1039/2010 (CM No.12875/2011 & CM No. 12876/20.11 (cross obiections), LA.APP 154/2011, LA.APP 158/2011, LA.APP 274/2011,' LA.APP 368/2011, LA.APP 379/2011, LA.APP 384/2011 & LA.APP 411/2011 (Relating to NotificationNo. F.No.ll(36)/94-L&B/LA/5722dated 5"^ April, 1995 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Award No. 19/97-98, Village-Shahpur Garhi, Delhi) COl^M: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER

23.12.2011 ]. The above captioned appeals arise out of Award No. 19/97-98 of the concerned Land Acquisition Collector pertaining to the agricultural land in -the revenue estate of Village-Shahpur Garhi, Delhi, which was ..acquiredby the respondentvide Notificationof 5"' April, 1995 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The market price of the acquired land in question was determined by the Land Acquisition Collector @ ^8,01,600/- per acre or @ ^1,67,000/- per bigha.

¶2In the Reference sought under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the claimants/ land owners i.e. the appellants, the Reference Court has enlianced the compensation to ?8,16,720/- per acre. Not satisfied with the aforesaid enhancement of ^15,120/- per acre for the acquired land, appellants have,come up in these appeals to seek much higher compensationi.e. enhanced compensation@ ?100/- per square yard. j

¶3For development of |Freight Complex in Narela Project, vide Notificationof 5^'' April, 1995, under Section4 of the Land Acquisition Page 2 ! <y-pg E;i®: V I • ' • . . • • ,1 5^laigeaieaofagriculturallandmeasuring733 bigliasand 10 biswas ol Village-ShahpurGarhi, Delhi was acquiredby the respondents.The ,,i •. [actual details disclosing as to how in pursuance to the aforesaid Sj i . Notification,AwardNo. 19/97-98cameto be passedand the substanceof |l: ^he evidenceledbeforethe ReferenceCourtstandsnotedin the impugned judgmentand is not requiredto be recapitulated.

¶4Beforethe ReferenceCourt, assessmentof the marketvalue of the acquiredland in questionwas soughton the-basisofDDA predetermined rate of the year 1992-93pertainingto NarelaResidentialScheme and on the strengthofDSIDCapprovedlandrate for allotmentofplots in Narela IndustrialComplex,which stands negated in the impugnedorder while relying upon decision of the Apex Court in Union of India Kv. Rain Phool (2003) 10 see 167. On the aspectofpotentialityofthe acquired land in question being near, the developed land, Reference Court has extensivelyreUed upon DivisionBench decisionofthis Court in GajraJ Singh Vs. Union of India 2006 VI AD (Delhi) 13 in mEiintaining enhancement@11.5% from the effectivedate of governmentpolicy of fixing minimum price of agricultural lands in Delhi,' till Notification under Section4 of the,Land AcquisitionAct was issued.Notingthat the boundary of Village-Shahpur Garhi touches the boundary of Village-HolambiKalan,ReferenceCourtin the impugnedjudgmenthas assessed the compensationin the instant case on the basis of the compensation, assessedby this Courtin GajrajSingh (Supra)relatingto Notificationof 15"' November, 1996,ainder Section4 of Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, j pertainingto Village-HolambiKalan. i' • •

¶5In theseappeals,at the final hearing,the counselspresenton behalf j • ofthe appellantsas well as seniorcounselfor the respondentswere heard : and with their assistance, the impugned judgment and the record was LA.App No.608/2009&Connectedmatters Page 3 I'S •. , •:/ . r perused. Since tiie submissions advanced by botli tlie sides in these appeals were common, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, these appeals and cross-objections are being decided by this common order.

6.. The grounds of challenge to the Award of Land Acquisition Collector before the Reference Court are being noticed herein, for the reason that the same very grounds have been urged in these appeals on behalf of the appellants. These are:- 'i) That LAC has given very low rate of market value though the land of the petitioner has got potential value as the land of the petitioner is surrounded by the biggest colony of Asia namely Rohini and the land was acquired for the commercial activities;

ii) • that LAC has not taken into consideration that land has been acquired for commercial activities such . as for setting of freight complex, therefore, market ' value of the land should be fixed at the rate of. Rs.5,000/- per sq.meter.

iii) that his land is situated quite close to the residential area of Narela and DSIDC Complex due to which his land has more potential value;

iv) that land of the petitioner is between two roads including a national highway i.e. Government Karnal Road, and Delhi Narela Road, therefore, it has great potentiality for residential and commercial purposes; that palatial farm house has been constructed in the same revenue estate in which land of the petitioner has been situated;

v) that land of the petitioner is fiilly developed and has all the modern facilities/ necessities i.e. telephone,, electric, connection, water suppty, public schools and ' SSN College and most frequent service of DTC buses and other private transport.'

¶7In substance, aforesaid grounds are the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants before this Court to challenge the impugned order of the Reference Court. Undisputedly, the land use of the acquired land in LA.AppNo.608/2009 &. Connectedmatters Page 4 'S' , i:ri Vf;: • Kgf , • vV question Avas agricultural at the time of issuance of Notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act in question. The main ground to seek enhancement of compensation put forth on behalf of the appellants is the potential value of the land in question. Though the stand of the appellants herein before the Reference Court was that the land in question is strategically located from the commercial and industrial point of view, as it is just two kilometres away from Narela Green Mandi and three kilometres away from DSIDC Industrial Complex and that it has a great market value and potentiality, as it has been acquired for the development of Rohini Residential Scheme.

¶8Appellants claim that acquired land is in close proximity of Industrial Area developed by DSIDC and residential colony developed by DDA, and they rely upon Letter of Allotment (EX. PW-l/A) of a plot in Narela Industrial Complex @ ^650/- per square meter in the year 1990 by DSIDC. It is also claimed by the appellants that allotment of alternate plot under the Narela Residential Scheme by DDA in the year 1992-93, was available @ ^650/- per square meter as per demand cum allotment letter (EX. PW2/1). Thus, seeking parity with aforesaid rates of developed lands, enliancement in compensation is sought by the appellants.

¶9On the factual aspect, it stands noted in the impugned judgment that the land of the villages adjoining the village in question, including village-Holambi Kalan, has been acquired for the development of industrial area and Narela residential area in Narela. Conceding that the acquiredland is in proximityof the industrialarea developedby DSIDC, learned senior counsel for the respondenthas clarified that the purpose of acquisitionoftheland in questionis solelyfor the developmentof freight complex in Narela. However, it was disputedthat the acquired land in LA.App No.608/2009&Connectedmatters Page 5 / question is surrounded by any developed.colony and thus, it was contended that the appellants cannot claim enhancement of the compensation by relying upon the rate of land in Narela Industrial Complexorunderthe NarelaResidentialSchemefloatedby DDA. Inthis regard reliancewas placed upon the decisionof the Apex Court in Lai Chand Vs. Union of India & Am\ (2009) 15 SCC 769. Reliance was also placed upon a decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in LA.APP 266/2008Jai Singh Fs'. Union of India & Ann , renderedon 23"' August, 2011, wherein in relation to.this village, pertainingto an acquisition of land vide Notification of 16"' May, 2002, amount of compensation was determined at ^18,65,500/- per acre while relying upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Gqjr.ajSingh Vs. Union ofIndia 2006 IV AD (Delhi) 13.

¶10Even in the impugned judgment, in the absence of sale instances, Reference Court •has relied upon Gajraj Singh (Supra), wherein pertaining to acquisition of the land of the adjoining village-Holambi Kalan, in relation to Notification of 15"' November, 1996, the compensation determined was @ ?9,76,121/- per acre for A Category land and (^^9,51,121/- per acre for B Category land.

¶11Reference Court has rightly concluded-that grounds of challenge laid to the Award, as noted in paragraph No.6 herein above, against the Award in question, remains unsubstantiated by the appellants.

¶12While relying upon two decisions of the Apex Court in Bhim Singh Vs. State of Haryana

(2003) 10 SCC 529 & Union of India Vs. 'Ram Phool (2003) 10 SCC 167, claim of the appellants to apply DDA and DSIDC rates to the land in question'stands repelled by holding that no willingpurchaserwould buy agriculturallandin questionat the rate on which government is allotting developed land. Page 6 r.--- / •

¶13During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellants were not able to show that the aforesaid decisions are inapplicablenor any decisionto the contrarywas cited. Infact, Apex Court'in its recent decision in Lai Chand Vs. Union of India (2009) 15 SCC 769 has reiteratedin no uncertainterms that the rates for allotmentof developed . land by the DDA cannot be the basis for calculation of the market value of the acquired undevelopedlands. The pertinent observationsmade in paragraphs No.44 & 48 in Lai Chand (Supra), which deserves to be' highlighted, are as under:- '44. One of the recognized methodsfor determination ofmarketvalue isMnth referenceto the opinionofexperts. The .estimation of market value by such statutorily constituted Expert Committees,as expert evidencecan thereforeform, the basis for determining the market value in. land acquisition cases, as a relevantpiece ofevidence. It will be howeveropen to eitherparty to place evidence to dislodge the presumption that mayflowfrom such guideline market value. We, however, hasten to add that the guideline market value can he a. releva.nt piece of evidence only if they are assessed by statutorily appointed Expert Committees, in accordance with the prescribed assessment procedure (either streetwise, or roadwise, or areawise, or villagewise) and finalized after inviting objections and published in the gazette. Be that as it m.ay.

¶48Even if the relied upon transaction is only tM>o to three years prior to the acquisition, the Court should, before adopting a standard escalation, satisfy itself tha.tthere were no adverse circumstances.For example, if the acquisition is of the year 2009, it may not bepossible to determine the market value, based on the 2007 or 2008 prices, by providing an increase of 12% or 15% per year, as the neM^spaperreports disclose that the price of immovableproperties in most areas of the country came down by more than 40% to 50%from, the 2007 rates. Caution is therefore necessary before increasing the price yvith reference to the old transactions. Be that as it may. It is clear that the award, made, in regard to a 1961 acquisition mhII not be of any usefor determining the market value for a 1981 acquisition.' LA.App No.608/2009&Connectedmatters Page 7 t > ' h'f.' 1 - <'h-\

¶14The aforesaiddecisionofthe ApexCourtinLaiSingh (Supra),has been folloAvedby aCoordinateBenchofthis Courtin JaiSingh (Supra), whichalso apphesonall fours inthesemattersas well.

¶15On the potentialityaspect,neitherthe map / sizra(EX. PW3/A)nor any other evidence,establishesthat apart from the DSIDC, there is any developmentin the vicinity of the acquired land. As already observed above, no sale instancesofthe nearbyarea are forthcomingto depictthe potentialityofthe area in question.It has to be kept in mind thatthe land in questionhas beenacquiredfor developmentofthe freightcomplexand not for the developmentofaresidentialarea. Exceptthe oral assertionof the appellants/claimantsthat the acquiredland is for the developmentof the RohiniResidentialArea, thereis no tangibleevidenceto establishthis factual assertion.

¶16Cioss objectionsfiled by the respondentsto maintainthe rate of compensationfixed by the Land AcquisitionCollector'andnot to adopt the ratio ofdecisionin Gajmj (Supra), are found to be withoutsubstance foi the reason that undisputedlyGajraj (Supra) has attainedfinalityand becauseit has not been shown by the respondentsas to how this decision of the DivisionBench of this Court has been wrongly applied by the ReferenceCourt to the facts ofthe instant cases. Rather, I find that the ReferenceCourthas correctlyreliedupon the decisionin Gajraj(Supra), • to arriveat the correctmarketvalueofthe acquiredland in question.

¶17Since the decision,of the DivisionBench of this case in Gajraj •(Supra), has attained finality and it is the basis of the decision of a CooidinateBenchofthis Courtin JaiSingh (Supra),and is also the basis ol the impugned order, therefore,I find no infirmityin the impugned order, adoptingthe rate of compensationas fixed by DivisionBench of this Court in Gajraj(Supra),in the matterof adjoiningvillage-Holambi ^ Kalan. Even the leductionofthe rate ofcompensationassessed@11.5% compoundinterestfrom the date ofNotificationof 15"^ November,1996 in Gajraj(Supra)to date ofNotificationof 5"^ April, 1995 in the instant case is concerned,Ifmd the sameto be in conformitywiththe decisionin Gajraj (Supra), wherein annual compounding @11.5% has been approved.

¶18As neither side could find fault in tlie-impugnedjudgment determmmgtlie marketvalue of tlie land in question@?8,16.720/-per acre, therefore,the appealsofthe claimantas well as cross-objectionsof the respondentsare dismissed,witlino orderas to costs.Accordingly,all the above-mentionedappeals and cross-objectionsare disposedof with . direction to the Reg;istry to remit the compensation amount, if any. depositedby eitlierside with tire RegistrarGeneralof this Court, to the concerned Reference Court. December 23, 2011 IS LA.App No.608/2009&Connectedmatters Page 9

< % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 8^'^ November, 2011 Pronounced on: 23'^'^December, 2011 130/2010, LA.APP 176/2010 & CM No. 12873/2011, LA.APP 177/2010, LA.APP 179/2010, LA.APP 184/2010, LA.APP 214/2010, LA.APP219/2010, LA.APP 229/2010, LA.APP233/2010, LA.APP 234/2010, LA.APP 235/2010, LA.APP 236/2010, LA.APP 237/2010, LA.APP 240/2010, LA.APP 241/2010, LA.APP 255/2010, LA.APP 256/2010 & CM No. 12934/2011 (cross objections), LA.APP 257/2010, LA. APP. 258/2010, LA. APP /2010, LA.APP 271/2010, LA.APP 413/2010, LA.APP 414/2010, LA.APP 415/2010, LA.APP 416/2010, LA.APP 417/2010 & CM No.3584/2011 (cross obiections). , LA.APP 419/2010, LA.APP 425/2010, LA.APP 453/2010, LA.APP 546/2010, LA.APP 547/2010, LA.APP 548/2010, LA.APP 549/2010, LA.APP 550/2010, LA.APP 551/2010, LA.APP 552/2010, LA.APP 553/2010, LA.APP 554/2010, LA.APP 555/2010, LA.APP 556/2010, LA.APP 557/2010, LA.APP ^ 558/2010, LA.APP 559/2010, LA.APP 560/2010, LA.APP 561/2010, LA.APP 562/2010, LA.APP 563/2010, LA.APP 564/2010, LA.APP 565/2010. LA.APP 567/2010, LA.APP 568/2010, LA.APP 569/2010. LA.APP 570/2010, LA.APP 571/2010, LA.APP 572/2010. LA.APP 573/2010, LA.APP 574/2010, LA.APP 575/2010. LA.APP 576/2010, LA. APP 770/2011, LA.APP 771/2010. LA.APP 772/2010, LA. APP 773/2010, LA.APP 774/2010. LA.APP 775/2010, LA. APP 805/2010, LA.APP 822/2010, LA.APP 824/2010 & CM No.10333/2011 (cross-obiectionl LA.APP 864/2010, LA.APP 901/2010, LA.APP 902/2010, LA.APP 962/2010, LA.APP 1014/2010, LA.APP 1015/2010, LA.APP 1016/2010, LA.APP 1027/2010, LA.APP 1032/2010, LA.APP 1035/2010, LA.APP 1037/2010, LA.APP 1038/2010 & CM No. 12952/2011 Ccross-obiectionsl LA.APP 1039/2010 (CM No. 12875/2011 & CM No. 12876/2011 (cross obiections). LA.APP 154/2011, LA.APP 158/2011. LA.APP 274/2011, LA.APP 368/2011, LA.APP 379/2011. LA.APP 384/2011 & LA.APP 411/2011 (Relating to Notification No. F.No.ll(36)/94-L&B/LA/5722 dated Page 1 Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. y 5'*^ April, 1995 issuedunderSection4 ofthe Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 19/97-98, Village- Shahpur Garhi, Delhi) Present: Mr. Deepak Khosla & Mr. V.P. Rana, Advocates for appellants. Mr. Sanjay Podar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Ms. K.Kamoudi Kiran, Mr. Mohit Rao Jadhav & Ms. Navlin Swain, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR