Union of India v. Satbir & Anr

ORDER

23.12.2011 For orders see LA.APP No. 608 of 2009. ^-^scmTcAUR) JUDGE December 23, 2011 rs LA.AppNo.608/2009&Connectedmatters Page2 I N . % // IN' THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reservedon: 8^''November.2011 Pronouncedon: 23''''December,2011 , + LA"APFNo.608/2009'''-' SHRIRAMESHKUMAR Appellant Through: Mr. Deepak Kliosla & Mr. V.P. Rana, Advocates. . versus UNIONOF INDIA & ORS. . Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Podar, Spnior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Paliak, Ms. K.Kamoudi Kiran, Mr. Mohitrao Jadhav & Ms. Navlin Swain, Advocates. + l.A APP.415/2011.LA.APP 608/2009,LA.APP129/2010,I^^P^ 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 obiections).LA.APP257/2010,• LA.APP258/2010.LA. APP 259 /2010, LA.APP 271/2010, LA.AP_P 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 546/201(), 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 560/2030, 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 ^0/2010. LA.APP 571/2010, LA.APP j^79/9010 TA.APP i73/2aMrLA.APP574/2010, LA.APP 575/2010, Cl.A.APP 576/20ia'fe^PP

77.0/2011. LA.APP 771/2010. LA.APP >72/2010. L7CTPP"773/2010. LA.APP 774/2010..LA.APP 775/2010, LA.App No.608/2009&Connectedmatters • ' Page! '' '• •- l!]v r \iy T.A.APP 805/2010. LA.APP 822/2010. LA.APP 824/2010 & CM . • No.10333/2011rcross-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. TA.APP. 1027/2010, LA.APP • 1032/2010. LA.APP 1035/2010. LA.APP 1037/2010. LA.APP 1038/2010 & CM No.12952/2011 ("cross-obiections). LA.APP 1039/2010 (CM No.12875/2011 & CM No.12876/2011 (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 April, 1995 issuedunder Section'4ofthe Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 19/97-98, Village-Shahpur Garhi, Delhi) COllAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR — •. QRBER

23.12.2011 ^

¶1The above captionedappeals arise out of Award No.19/97-98 of the concernedLand AcquisitionCollectorpertainingto the agricultural land in the revenue estate of Village-Shahpur Garhi,.Delhi, which was acquired by the respondentvide Notificationof 5^'^ April, 1995 under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894. The market price ot 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 enhanced 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 compensation i.e. enhanced compensation @ ?100/- per square yard.

¶3. For development of Freight Complex in Narela Project, vide Notificationof 5"' April, 1995, under Section4 of the Land Acquisition LA.App No.608/2009&Connectedmatters Page 2 •• /'• )3 Act,alargeareaofagriculturallandmeasuring733 bighasand 10 biswas of Village-ShahpurGarhi, Delhi was acquiredby the respondents.The factual details disclosing as to how in pursuance to the aforesaid Notification,AwardNo. 19/97-98cameto be passedand the substanceof the evidenceled beforethe ReferenceCourtstandsnotedin the impugned judgmentand is not required"to be recapitulated.

¶4. Beforethe ReferenceCourt, assessmentofthe marketvalue ofthe acquiredland in questionwas soiighton the basis ofDDA predetermined rate ofthe year 1992-93pertainingto NarelaResidentialSchemeand on the strengthofDSIDC approvedlandrate for allotmentofplots in Narela IndustrialComplex,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 aspectof potentialityof the acquired land in question being near the developed land, Reference Court has extensivelyreliedupon DivisionBench decisionofthis Court in Gajraj Singh Vs. Union of India 2006 VI AD (Delhi) 13 in maintaining enhancement@11.5% from the effectivedate of governmentpoHcy of fixing minimum price of agriculturallands in Delhi, till Notification under Section4 ofthe Land AcquisitionAct was issued.Notingthat the boundary of NlWdigt-Shahpur Garhi touches the boundary of Village-HolainbiKalan,ReferenceCourtin the impugnedjudgmenthas assessed the compensationin the instant case on the basis ot the compensation, assessedby this Courtin GajrajSingh (Supra)relatingto Notificationof 15^'^ November, 1996, under Section 4 of Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, ,pertainingto NiW'SigQ-HolambiKalan.

¶5In theseappeals,at the final hearing,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 , Page3 H''"', ••• • .. // v'/ perused. Since the submissions advanced by botli the 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.

¶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 sun"ounded 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. Govermnent 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 situated;

v) thatland ofthe petitioneris fiillydevelopedand has all the modern facilities/necessitiesi.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 bchaltofthe appellantsbeforethis Courtto challengethe impugnedorder ol the ReferenceCourt.Undisputedly,the land use ofthe acquiredland in LA.AppNo.608/2009&Connectedmatters Page4 . i S i''' w/ 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 potentialvalue of the land in question.Thoughthe stand of the appellants herein before the Reference Court was that the land in question is strategicallylocatedfrom the commercialandindustrialpoint of view, as it is just two kilometres away 'from Narela Green Mandi and three kilometresaway from DSIDC IndustrialComplexand that it has a great marketvalue and potentiality,as it has been acquiredfor the development of Rohini Residential Scheme.

¶8Appellants claim that acquired land is in close proximity of IndustrialAreadevelopedby DSIDC and residentialcolonydevelopedby DDA, and they rely upon Letterof Allotment(EX. PW-l/A)of a plot in NarelaIndustrialComplex@^650/-per squaremeterin the year 1990 by DSIDC. It is also claimed by the appellantsthat allotmentof alternate plot under the NarelaResidentialScheme 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, enhancement in compensation is sought by the appellants.

¶9On the factual aspect, it stands noted in the impugnedjudgment that the land ofthe villages adjoiningthe village in question,including village-Holambi Kalan, has been acquired for the development of industrialarea and Narelaresidentialarea in Narela. Concedingthat the acquiredland is in proximityofthe industrialarea developedby DSIDC,- learnedseniorcounselfor the respondenthas clarifiedthatthe purposeof acquisitionofthe land in questionis solelyfor the developmentoffreight complex in Narela. Llowever,it was disputed that the acquiredland in LA.App No.608/2009 & Connected matters Page 5 if ' • ".r \ • ^ i. . I , ^ V-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 Complexor underthe NarelaResidentialSchemefloatedbyDDA. In this regard reliancewas placed upon the decisionof the Apex Court in Lai Chaml Vs. Union of India & Am. (2009) 15 SCC 769. Reliancewas also placed upon a decision of a Coordinate Bench .of this Court in LA.APP 266/2008Jai Singh Vs. 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 compensationwas determined at ^18,65,500/-per acre while relying upon a DivisionBenchdecisionofthis Courtin GajmjSingh Vs. Union 6f/7rtrf/«2006IV AD (Delhi) 13.

¶10Even in the impugnedjudgment,in the absence of sale instances, Refeience 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 @^9,5.1,121/-per acre for BCategoryland. • '

¶11ReferenceCourt 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 Bhim Singh Vs. StateofHaiyana (2003) 10 SCC 529 & Union ofIndia Vs. Ram Phool (2003) 10 SCC 167, claim ofthe appellantsto apply DDA and DSIDC rates to*the land in questionstands repelledby holdingthat no willingpurchaserwould buy agriculturalland in questionat the rate on which governmentis allottingdevelopedland. LA.AppNo.608/2009 & Connected matters Page 6 I- • .Z" J • •

¶13During the course of hearing, 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 Vs. Union of India (2009) 15 SCC 769 has reiterated in no uncertain terms that the rates for allotment of developed land by the DDA cannotbe the basis for calculationof the marketvalue of the acquiredundevelopedlands. 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 ofmarket value is with reference to the opinion ofexperts. The estimation of market vahie by such statutorily constituted Expert Committees,as expert evidence can thereforeform the basis for determining the market value in land acquisition cases, as a relevant piece of eyidence. It will be however open to either party to place evidence to dislodge the presumption that mayfloM!from such guideline market value. We, however, 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 two to three years prior to the acquisition, the Court shoidd, ^before adopting a standard escalation, satisfy itself that 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 countiy came down by more than 40% to 50%)from, the 2007 rates. Caution is therefore necessary before increasing the price with reference to the old transactions. Be that as it may. It is clear that the award made in regard to a 1961 acquisition Mnll not be of any use for determining the market value for a 1981 acquisition.' LA.App No.608/2009 & Connected matters , Page 7 h y y v-7

¶14The aforesaid decision of the'Apex Court in-Lai Singh (Supra), has been followed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Jai Singh (Supra), which also applies on all fours in these matters as well.

¶15On the potentiality aspect, neither the map./ sizra (EX. PW3/A) nor any other evidence, establishes that apart from the DSIDC, there is any development in the vicinity of the acquired land. As already observed above, no sale instancesof the nearby area are forthcomingto depict the potentiality of the area in question. It has to be kept in mind that the land in questionhas been acquiredfor developmentof the freightcomplexand not for the developmentof a residentialarea. Except the oral assertionof the appellants/claimantsthat the acquiredland is for the developmentof-the Rohini Residential Area, there is no tangible evidence to establishthis factual assertion.

¶16Cross objections filed by the respondents to maintain the rate of compensationfixed by the Land AcquisitionCollectorand not to adopt the ratio of decision in Gajraj (Supra), are found to be'without substance for the reason that undisputedlyGajraj (Supra) has attainedfinalityand becauseit has not been shown by the respondentsas to how this decision of the Division Bench,of this Court has been wrongly apphed by the Reference Court to the facts of the instant cases. Rather, I find that the ReferenceCourthas correctlyreliedupon the decisionin Gajraj(Supra), to arriveat the correctinarketvalueoftheacquiredlandin 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 CoordinateBenchofthis CourtinJai Singh (Supra),and is also the basis of 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-Holainbi LA.AppNo.608/2009&Connectedmatters Page 8 if; • i Kalan. Even the reduction of the rate of compensation assessed @11.5% compoundinterestfrom the date of Notificationof 15^'' November, 1996 in Gajraj (Supra) to date of Notificationof 5"' April, 1995 in the instant case is concerned, I find the same to be in conformity with the decision in Gajraj (Supra), wherein annual compounding @11.5%) has been approved.

¶18As neither side, could find fault in the impugned judgment determiningthe market value of.the land in question @^^8,16,720/-per ' acre, therefore,the appealsof the claimantas well as cross-objectionsof the respondentsare dismissed,with no order as to costs..Accordingly,all the above-mentionedappeals and cross-objectionsare disposed of with direction to the Registry to remit the compensation amount, if any, depositedby either side with the RegistrarGeneral of this Court, to the concerned Reference Court. December 23, 2011 |-S LA.App No.608/2009 & Connected matters JUDGE Page 9

% IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 214/2010. Reserved on: 8^'^ 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 184/2010, LA.APP 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 Tcross 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, 548/2010, 551/2010, 554/2010, 557/2010, 560/2010, 563/2010, 567/2010, 570/2010, LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP 546/2010, 549/2010, 552/2010. 555/2010, 558/2010. 561/2010, LA.APP 564/2010. LA.APP 568/2010. LA.APP 571/2010, LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP 547/2010, 550/2010, 553/2010, 556/2010. 559/2010. 562/2010, 565/2010, 569/2010, 572/2010, LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP LA.APP 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 Tcross-objection), LA.APP 864/2010, LA.APP 901/2010, LA.APP 902/2010, LA.APP 962/2010, LA.APP 1014/2010. LA.APP 1015/2010. T.A.APP 1016/2010. LA.APP 1027/2010. LA.APP 1032/2010. LA.APP 1035/2010. LA.APP 1037/2010. LA.APP 1038/2010 & CM N0.12952/2Q11 rcross-objections). LA.APP 1039/2010 TCM No. 12:875/2011& CM No.12876/2011 (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 (Relatingto NotificationNo. F.No.ll(36)/94-L&B/LA/5722dated LA.AppNo.608/2009 & Connected matters Pagel 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 issuedunder Section4 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