UOI v. Harpal Singh & Anr

ORDER

23.12.2011 For orders see LA.APP No. 608 of 2009. (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE December 23, 2011 rs LA.AppNo.608/2009&Connectedmatters Page2 4-THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % • ,• Rp.servedon:8^''November.2011 Pronouncedon: 23'^December,2011 + T.A.AFPNo.608/2009 SHM RAMESH KUMAR . Through; Mr. Deepak Kliosla & Mr. V.P. Rana, Advocates. versus UNIONOF INDIA &ORS. Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Podai', Senior Advocate wiUi MrSanjay Kumai" Pathak, Ms. K.Kainoudi Kiran, Mr. Mohitrao Jadhav & Ms. Navlin Swam, Advocates. AND 1• 1AAPP411 T.A.APP 608/2009,LA.APP129/2010,I^iAPP 177/2010 T.A APP 179/2010. LA.APP 184/2010. LA.APP 214,JUA 1AAppoiooniO T.A.APP 229/2010..LA.APP233/2010,—LAAJPP I.A.APP 240/20lO^JAAHLlilMllLJA^^ 7^6/2010&r.MNo. 12934/2011 (-cross obiertinns),LA.AJP 25^/2^ [.A APP258/2010,LA. APP 2'i9 /2010. LA APP 271/^010.L4^ A,inmn T.A APP 414/2010. LA.APF 41S/2010. LA.APP 416/^lA TAAPP 417/2010 & rM No.3584/2011 (cross obiectimsl^AAH 419/2010 TAAPP 42*1/2010. LA.APP 453""'" LA APP 546/2010. IAAPP '^47/7010 LA.APP 'i48/2010.,LA.APP54^10jLA^ LA.APP 554/2010. LA.APP 555/2010. LA.APP 556/2010^^^ 557/2010 LA.APP 558/2010. LA APP 559/2010. I.A.AFP S60/jWIA IAAPP 561/2010. TAAPP -SCTOOIO LA.APP 563/2010. LA^ r A APP -^^5/9010 T,A.APP 567/2010,.JAAPP^mm TA APP 569/2010. LA.APP 570/2010 T.A.APP 571/20m ^79/9010 I,A APP 573/2010 T.A.APP 574/9010. LA.APF I AAPP 576/2010. LA.APP 770/2011. LA.APP 771/2010. LATjJP 774/M0^LAAra77V20m LA.App No.608/2009&Connectedmatters Page 1 'i; '• I LA.APP 805/2010, LA.APP 822/2010. LA.APP 824/2010 & CM No.10333/2011 rci-oss.-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 (cross-obieictions'). LA.APP 1039/2010 (CM No.12875/2011 & CM No. 12876/20.11 (cross objections), 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'''^ Ai^rilT.1995 issuedunder Section4 oT^ LaiiH^Acquisition & Award No. 19/97-98, Village-Shahpur Garhi, Delhi) COl^M: • ' I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER 23li2011 ]. The above captioned appeals arise out of Award No.19/97-98 of the concernedLand AcquisitionCollectorpertaining 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 enliancedthe compensation to ?8,16,720/- per acre. Not satisfied with the aforesaid enliancetnent of ? 15,120/- per acre for the acquired land, appellantshave,come up in these appeals to seek much higher compensation i.e. enhanced compensation @ ?100/- per square yard.

¶3For development of Freight Complex in Narela' Project, vide Notificationof 5"' April, 1995, under Section4 of the Land:Acquisition LA.App No.608/2009 & Connected matters Page 2 ff I ) V-H'l, ^ •i I. :*• i •;v.'|' h r:- V it •P' ; ii ji Act, alaigeaieaofagriculturallandmeasuring733 bighasand 10 biswas oi Village-Shahpur Garhi, Delhi was acquiredby the respondents.The factual details disclosing as to how in-pursuance to the aforesaid Notification,AwardNo. 19/97-98came to be passedand the substanceof the evidenceled beforethe ReferenceCourtstandsnotedin the impugned judgmentand is not requiredto be recapitulated.

¶4Beforethe ReferenceCourt, assessmentof the marketvalue ofthe acquiredland in questionwas soughton the basis ofDDA predetefmined rate of the year 1992-93pertainingto NarelaResidentialScheme and on ' the strengthofDSIDC approvedlandrate for allotmentofplots in Narela IndustiialComplex,which stands negated in the impugnedorder while relying upon decision of the Apex Court in Union ofIndia Vs. Ram Phool(2003) 10 see .167. On the aspect of potentialityof the acquired land in question being near the developed land, Reference Court has extensivelyrehed upon DivisionBench decisionofthis Court in Gajraj ' Singh Vs. Utiion of India 2006 VI AD (Delhi) 13 in maintaining enhancement@11.5% from the effectivedate of governmentpolicy of fixing minimum price of agriculturallands in Delhi, till Notification under Section4 ofthe 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 ofthe compensation, assessedby this Courtin GajrajSingh (Supra)relatingto Notificationof 15"' November, 1996,: under Section4of Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, pertaining to Village —Holainbi Kalan.

¶5In these appeals,at the finalhearing,the counselspresenton behalf ofthe appellantsas well as seniorcounselfor the respondentswere heard and with their assistance,the impugnedjudgment and the record was LA.AppNo.608/2009&Connectedmatters Pape3 perused. Since tiie submissions advanced by botli tlie sides in these appealswere common,therefore,With the consentof learnedcounselfor the parties,these appeals and cross-objectionsare being decidedby this common order. '

¶6The 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 hot taken into' considerationthat 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 road,s including a national highway i.e. Government Karnal Road, and Delhi Narela Road, therefore, it has great potentialityfor residentialand commercialpurposes; that palatial farm house has been constructed in the same revenue estate in which land of the petitioner has been sitTiated; '

v) that landofthe petitioneris iiillyd(3velopedand has all the modern facilities/ necessities i.e. telephone, electric, connection, water supply, 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.App No.608/2009 & Connected matters Page 4 py; question was 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 avaikble @ ^650/- per square meter as per demand cum allotment letter (EX. PW2/1). Thus, seeking parity with aforesaid rates of developed lands, enhancement 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 acquired land is in proximity of the industrialarea developedby DSIDC, learned senior counsel for the respondenthas clarified that the purpose of acquisitionof the land in questionis solelyfor the developmentof freight complex in Narela. However, it was disputed that the acquired land in LA.App No.608/2009&Connectedmatters ' Page 5 <jp'y !?-• .,' • y r" 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. In this regard reliancewas placed upon the decisionof the Apex Court in Lai Chand Vs. Union of India & Anr. (2009) 15 SCC 769. Rehance was also placed upon a decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in LA.APP 266/2008Jai Singh Vs^ Union ofIndia &Anr. , renderedon August, 2011, wherein in relation to.this village, pertainingto an acquisition of land vide Notificationof 16"\ May, 2002, amount of compensation was determined at ?18,65,500/-per acre while relying upon a DivisionBenchdecisionofthis Courtin GqjraJSingh Vs. Union ofIndia 2006 IV AD (Delhi) 13.

¶10Even in the impugnedjudgment,in the absence of kle instances, Reference Court•has relied upon Gajraj Singh (Supra), wherein pertainingto acquisitionof the land of the adjoiningvillage-Holambi Kalan, in relation to Notification of 15"' November, 1996, the compensationdeterminedwas @ ^9,76,121/-per acre for A Category land and(^^9,51,121/-per acre for B Categoryland.

¶11Reference Court has rightly concludedthat grounds of challenge laid to the Award, as noted in paragraphNo.6 herein above, againstthe Award in question,remainsunsubstantiatedby the appellants.

¶12While relying upon two decisions,of the Apex Court in BMm Singh Vs. State of Haryana (2003) 10 SCC 529 & Union ofIndia Vs. 'Ram Phool (2003) 10 SCC' 167, claim of the appellantsto apply DDA and DSIDC rates to the land in questionstands repelledby holding that no willingpurchaserwould buy agriculturallandin questionat the rate on whichgovernmentis allottingdevelopedland. LA.App No. 608/2009 & Connected matters Page 6 >Cs Wy-''

¶13During the course of healing, learned counsel for the appellants were not able to show that the aforesaid decisions are inapplicable nor any decision to the contrary was cited, hifact, Apex Court'in its recent decision in Lai Chand Fs, Union of India (2009) 15 SCC 769 has reiterated in no uncertain terms that the rates for allotment of developed land by the DDA cannot be the basis for calculation of the market value of the acquired undeveloped lands.'The pertinent observations made in paragraphs No.44 & 48 in Lai Chand (Supra), which deserves to be / highlighted, are as under:- '44. One of the recognized methods for determination ofmarket vahie is M'ith reference to the opinion ofexperts. The estimation of market value by such statutorily constituted. Expert. Committees, as expert evidence can therefore form the basis for determining the market value in land, acquisition cases, as a relevant piece ofevidence. It will be however open-to either party to place evidence to dislodge the presumption that mayfloM'from such guideline market value. We, hoyvever, hasten to add that the guideline market value can be a. relevant 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 may.

¶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.t there were no adverse circumstances. For example, if the acquisition is of the year 2009, it may not be possible to determine the market value, based on the 2007 or 2008 prices, by providing an increase of 12% or 15% per year, as the newspaper reports disclose that the price of immovable properties 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 M'ith reference to the old transactions. Be that as it may. It is clear that the award made in regard to a 1961 acquisition mhU not be of any usefor determining the market valuefor a 1981 acquisition.' stasis szsiisa LA.App No.608/2009 & Connectedmatters Page 7 : •- . • • I •

¶14The aforesaiddecisionofthe Apex CourtinLaiSingh (Supra),has been followedby aCoordinateBenchofthis Courtin JaiSingh (Supra), whichalso applieson all 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 mquestionhas beenacquiredfor developmentofthe freightcomplexand not for the developmentofaresidentialarea. Exceptthe oral assertionof the appellants/clamiantsthat the acquiredland is for the development-of the RohmiResidentialArea,thereis no tangibleevidenceto establishdiis tactual assertion. IS. Cross objectionsfiled by the respondentsto maintainthe rate of compensationfixed by the Land AcquisitionCollector'and not to adopt the ratio ofdecisionin Gajraj(Supra),are found to be witiioutsubstance for the reason tliatimdisputediyGajmj (Supra)lias attainedfinalityand becauseit has not beenshown by the respondentsas to iiowtiiisdecision of the DivisionBench of tiiis Court I,as been wrongly applied by the ReferenceCourt to the facts of the instantcases. Rather,I find that the ReferenceCourthas correctlyrelieduponthe decisionin Gajraj(Supra), to arriveat the correctmarketvalueofthe acquiredlandin question.

¶17Since the decisionof the DivisionBench-oftills case in Qi/ra/ (Supra), has attained fmahty and it is the basis of the decision of a CoordinateBenchoftJiisCourtin JaiSingh(Supra),and is alsotlie basis of the impugnedorder, therefore,I find no infirmityin the impugned order, adoptingtlie rate of compensationas fixed by DivisionBench of this Court in Gajmj(Supra),in tlie matterofadjoiningvillage-Holambi LA.AppNo.608/2009&Connectedmatters mm h'." Kalan. Even the reductionofthe 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,I find the sameto be in conformitywiththe decisionin Gajraj (Supra), wherein annual compounding @11.5% has been approved.

¶18As neither side could find fault in the-impugnedjudgment dotciminingthe maj-lcetvalue of the land in question@?8,16,720/-per acre, therefore,the appealsofthe claimantas well as cross-objectionsof Ihc respondentsare dismissed,with no orderas to costs.Accordingly,all \ the above-nientionedappeals and cross-objectionsare disposedof with' ' direction to tlie Registry to remit the' compensationamount, if 'any, depositedby eitherside with the RegistrarGeneraloftliis Court, to the concerned Reference Court. December 23, 2011 ,r.s LA.AppNo.608/2009&Connected matters JUDGE-Page 9

% + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: S"' November, 2011 Pronounced on: 23''^December, 2011 LA APP.415/2011, LA.APP 608/2009, LA.APP 129/2010. LA.APP 130/2010, LA.APP 176/2010 & CM No. 12873/2011. LA.APP 177/2010, LA.APP 179/2010. LA.APP 184/20lO/jtArAPP 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 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 550/9010 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-objection). LA.APP 864/2010. LA.APP 901/2010. LA.APP 902/2010. LA.APP 962/2010. LA.APP 1014/2010. T.A.APP 1015/9010 LA.APP 1016/2010. LA.APP 1027/2010. T,A.APP 10^9/9010 LA.APP 1035/2010. LA.APP 1037/2010. T.A.APP 1038/9010 & CM No.12952/2011 (cross-objections), LA.APP 1039/2010 (CM No.12875/2011 & CM No. 12876/2011 Across obier.tinns^ T.A 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 (Relatingto NotificationNo. F.No.ll(36)/94-L&B/LA/5722dated LA.App No.608/2009 & Connected matters 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. 5"^ April, 1995 issuedunderSection4 ofthe LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 19/97-98, Village- Shahpur Garhi, Delhi) Present: Mr. Deepak Khosla & Mr. V.P. Rana, Advocates for appellants. ]\^. 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