UOI v. Suraj Bhan & Anr

ORDER

23.12.2011 For orders see LA.APP No. 608 of2009. December 23, 2011 rs LA.App No.608/2009 & Connected matters -------· JUDGE Page 2 % + --·-------<- ·•< iN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DElLJHH Reserved on: 8 117 November, 2011 d rd b Pronounce on: 23 Decem, er, 2011 LA.APP No.608/2009-SliRI RAMESH KUMAR Through: Mr. Deepak Khosla & Advocates. versus ..... AppeJant Mr. V.P. Rana, UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .. ... Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Podar, Senior Advocate vvich Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Ms. K.Karno:.1di IZiran, Mr. Mohitrao Jadhav & Ms. NJ.v Swain, Advocates. AND + LA APP.415/2011, LA.APP 608/2009, 130/2010 LA.APP 176/2010 & CM No. 12873/201] L/"L.AFF ----"--'- - 177/2010, LA.APP 179/2010, LA.APP 184/201Q,____LA.APP LA.APP219/2010, LA.APP 229/2010, LA.APP233/2010, 234/2010, LA.APP 235/2010, LA.APP 236/2010, LA.APP 237/!01 D. LA.APP 240/2010, LA.APP 241/2010, LA.APP 255/2010 LA .. APP 256/2010 & CM No. 12934/2011 (cross objections), LA.APP 257/20 1JL LAj\PP258/20 10, LA. APP 259 /2010, LA.APP 2711201 0, LA .. A,FP 413/?010, LA.APP 414/2010, LA.APP 415/2010, LA.APP 4l6/20liL LA.J\PP 417/2010 & CM No.3584/2011 (cross objections), L<L8-FP 419/1010, LA.APP 425/2010, LA.APP 453/?010, LA.APP 546/2QJj_1 LA./\PP 54 7/2010, LA.APP 548/2010, LA.APP 549/20j_Q_,__ 10, LA.APP 551/2010, LA.APP 552/?0 10, LA.APP U2l LA.APP 554/2010, LA.APP 555/2010, LA.APP 557/?010, LA.APP 558/2010, LA.APP 559/2010, LA.APP 56CV'OI i), LJ\.APP 56112010, LA.APP 562/2010, LA.APP 563/2010, L/\.AFP 565/2010, LA.APP 567/2010, LA.APP 568_(2_Q_Ll, LJ\.APP 569/2010, LA.APP 570/2010, LA.APP 572/2010, LA.APP 573/2010, LA.APP 574/2010, LA.APP 575/!0l.Q, LA.APP 576/2010, LA.APP 770/2011, LA.APP 77112010, L1\.AFP 772/2010, LA.APP 773/2010, LA.APP 774/2010, LA.APP 7751201_:2, Page 1 ::j i' I ( tr' lo,;'! ___ , __ , ___ --·· -----,··--···--------------------· "' ,, __ ,..,.,.. LA.APP 805/2010, LA.APP 822/2010, LA.APP 824/2010 & C vl No.10333/2011 (cross-objection), LA.APP 864/2010, LA.APP 9011201··), LA.!\.PP 902/2010, LA.APP 962/2010, LA.APP 1014/2010, LA .. APP 1015/2010, LA.APP 1016/2010, LA.APP 1027/2010, LA, .. APP 103?/2010, LA.APP 1035/2010, LA.APP 1037/2010, LA.APP 1038/!.0.lC & CM No.12952/2011 (cross-objections), LA.APP 1039/2010 fCM No.l2875/2011 & CM No.12876/2011 (cross objections), LA.APP 154/2011, LA.APP 158/2011, LA.APP 274/2011, LA.APP 3681701 L LA.APP 379/2011, LA.APP 384/2011 & LA.APP 411/2011 (Relating to Notification No. F.No.11(36)/94-L&B/LA/5722 dated 5th April, 1995 issued under Section4 ofthe Land Acquisition Act, & /\ward No. 19/97-98, Village-Shahpur Garhi, Delhi) CORAM: HlON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER

23.12.2011 J. The above captioned appeals arise out of Award No.19/97--98 e>f the concerned Land Acquisition Collector pertaining to the agricultural land in the revenue estate of Village-Shahpur Gar hi, Delhi, which vv :1s acquired by the respondent vide Notification of 5th April, 1995 Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The market price e>f tbe acquired land in question was determined by the Land Acquisitic·n Collector@ 1,600/- per acre or@ ,67,000/- per bigha.

¶2In the Reference sought under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition i\ct, 1894 by the claimants/ land owners i.e. the appellants, 11-,e Reference Court has enhanced the compensation to 16,720/- per Not satistled with the aforesaid enhancement per acre acquired land, appellants have come up in these appeals to seek much higher compensation i.e. enhanced compensation @ 00/- per :square yard.

¶3For development of Freight Complex in Narela Project, VJ(:e Notification of 5 111 April, 1995, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisiticn Page 2 -·--'·---·-··--·-----·---------------------· \ _,-; l _::) Act , a large area of agricultural land measuring 733 bighas and 10 bisv. as of Village-Shahpur Garhi, Delhi was acquired by the respondents. T!1e factual details disclosing as to how in pursuance to the abresz:id Notification, Award No. 19/97-98 came to be passed and the substance of the evidence led before the Reference Court stands noted in the judgment and is not required to be recapitulated.

¶4Before the Reference Comi, assessment of the market value of ·!he acquired land in question was sought on the basis of DDA predetermined rate of the year 1992-93 pertaining to Narela Residential Scheme and Jl1 the strength of DSIDC approved land rate for allotment of plots in Narc l:1 Industrial Complex, which stands negated in the impugned order while relying upon decision of the Apex Comi in Union of India Vs. R(un Phool (2003) 10 SCC 167. On the aspect of potentiality of the land in question being near the developed land, Reference Court has extensively relied upon Division Bench decision of this Court in G'a_jra:J Singh Vs. Union of India 2006 VI AD (Delhi) 13 in maintaining enhancement @11.5% from the effective date of goven1ment policy of fixing minimum price of agricultural lands in Delhi, till Notificatio11 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued. Noting ·chat boundary of Village-Shahpur Garhi touches the boundary of Vil.lage-1 lolambi Kalan, Reference Comi in the impugned judgment has a:3sessed the compensation in the instant case on the basis of the compensation, assessed by this Court in Gajraj Singh (Supra) relating to Notification of l5u 1 November, 1996, under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act. 189[, pertaining to Village-Holambi Kalan.

¶5In these appeals, at the final hearing, the counsels present on behalf of the appellants as well as senior counsel for the respondents were hemd and with their assistance, the impugned judgment and the record \;,·as LA.J\pp No. 608/2009 & Connected matters Page 3 ' ' ' i 4' I \ L-1 I perused. Since the submissions advanced by both the sides i,1 appeals were common, therefore, with the consent of learned com1se! 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, J\.Jr :he reason that t)1e same very grounds have been urged in these appea.ls ::m 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 sud: 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 betweei1 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 fully developed and 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 0!1 bchaJ f of the appellants before this Comi to challenge the impugnec order or the Reference Court. Undisputedly, the land use of the acquired land :n LA.ApfJ No. 608/2009 & Connected matters Page 4 ---- ------·--·- .. ----····---------------------- :; .. .I : .. I( I question was agricultural at the time of issuance of urKkr Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act in question. The main ground to enhancement of compensation put forth on behalf of the appellants is the po1.ential value of the land in question. Though the stand of the appella'1ts herein before the Reference Com1 was that the land in ques::icm is slralegically located from the commercial and industrial point of view. as it is just two kilometres away from Narela Green Mandi and three kilomc1.res away from DSIDC Industrial Complex and that it has ::1 market value and potentiality, as it has been acquired for the development or Rohini Residential Scheme. 8_ Appellants claim that acquired land is in close proximity JX Industrial Area developed by DSIDC and residential colony developed by DD/\, and they rely upon Letter of Allotment (EX. PW-1/A) of a :L Narcla Industrial Complex@ per square meter in the year 1990 by DSIDC_ It is also claimed by the appellants that allotment of alternr::e plot under the Narela Residential Scheme by DDA in the year 199:2-}3, was available @ per square meter as per demand cum allctmcnt letter (EX. PW2/l ). Thus, seeking parity with aforesaid rat::s cJf developed lands, enhancement in compensation is sought bv 1.he appellants.

¶9On the factual aspect, it stands noted in the impugned judgrneJ't that the land of the villages adjoining the village in question, includins village-Holambi Kalan, has been acquired for the development cf industrial area and Narela residential area in Narela. Conceding thJt acquired land is in proximity of the industrial area developed by learned senior counsel for the respondent has clarified that the purpos·c o:' acquisition ofthe land in question is solely for the development offJ-eigih. complex in Narela. However, it was disputed that the acquired land ic 0 age ;:::. f> I ,. ' l. i . .... -·-·-_____ _," ..... "-·--- - .. -- ( ,, question is sunounded by any developed colony and thus, i·t Y/as contended that the appellants cannot claim enhancement of the compensation by relying upon the rate of land in Narela In::-!ustjal Complex or under the Narela Residential Scheme floated by DDA. In this regard reliance was placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in ;__,lyf Chand Vs. Union of India & Anr. (2009) 15 SCC 769. Reliance was also placed upon a decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Ccmrt in LA.APP 266/2008 Jai Singh Vs. Union of India & Anr. , rendered on 23rd August, 2011, wherein in relation to this village, pertaining to an acquisition of land vide Notification of 16th May, 2002, amount of compensation was determined at per acre while upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Gajraj Singh Vs. V'nion of India 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-l!olamb,: Kalan, in relation to Notification of 15th November, ] 996, the compensation determined was @ per acre for A Ca.tego.cy land and per acre forB Category land. 1 I. Reference Comi has rightly concluded that grounds of challenge laid to the Award, as noted in paragraph No.6 herein above, agairsr e Award in question, remains unsubstantiated by the appellants.

¶12While relying upon two decisions of the Apex Comi 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 holdin::S that no willing purchaser would buy agricultural land in question at the rak oa which government is allotting developed land. r:'age S ··----·--·-··-----···--·------------------------· ----- _.; ·-·-· '\

¶13During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appdllants were not able to show that the aforesaid decisions are inapplicab:.e r0r any decision to the contrary was cited. Infact, Apex Comi in its recent decision in Lal Chand Vs. Union of India (2009) 15 SCC 769 b&s reiterated in no uncertain terms that the rates for allotment of devdopbd. land by the DDA cannot be the basis for calculation of the market or the acquired undeveloped lands. The pe1iinent observations made paragraphs No.44 & 48 in Lal Chand (Supra), which deserves to highlighted, are as under:- '44. One of the recognized methods for determination of market value is with reference to the opinion of experts. The estimation of nwrket value by such statutorily constituted C01nmittees, as expert evidence can therefore form the basis for determining the market value in land acquisition cases, as a relevant piece of evidence. It will be however open to either party to place evidence to dislodge the presumption that may flow from such guideline market value. We, hmvever, hasten to add that the guideline market value can be a relevant piece of evidence only if they are assessed by statutorily appointed Expert Comm.ittees, in accordance with the prescribed assessment procedure (either street111ise. 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 tvvo to three years prior to the acquisition, the Court should, 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 nwst areas of the count1y 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 will not be of any use for determining the market value.for a 1981 acquisition.' Page 7 -----·-. --- __ ... _______ "_ _. .. ;:

¶14The aforesaid decision of the Apex Court in La/ Singh (Suprc), bas been followed by a Coordinate Bench of this Comi in Jai Singh (Su"pra , which also applies on all fours in these matters as welL

¶15On the potentiality aspect, neither the map I sizra (EX. PW3/A) ncr any other evidence, establishes that apart from the DSIDC, there is acy development in the vicinity of the acquired land. As already observed above, no sale instances of the nearby area are fmihcoming to depict potentiality of the area in question. It has to be kept in mind that the land in question has been acquired for development of the freight comple'( and not for the development of a residential area. Except the oral asse1iion of the appellants/ claimants that the acquired land is for the development of the Rohini Residential Area, there is no tangible evidence to establisi1 this factual asse1iion.

¶16Cross objections filed by the respondents to maintain the rate compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector and not to adop. the ratio of decision in Gajraj (Supra), are found to be without substance for the reason that undisputedly Gajraj (Supra) has attained finalit:v· anc. because it has not been shown by the respondents as to how this decisior of the Division Bench of this Court has been wrongly applied b;' the Reference Court to the facts of the instant cases. Rather, I find that the Reference Comi has correctly relied upon the decision in Gajraj (Surxa), to arrive at the correct market value of the acquired land in question. 1 7. Since the decision of the Division Bench of this case in (Supra), has attained finality and it is the basis of the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Comi in Jai Singh (Supra), and is also the basis of the impugned order, therefore, I find no infirmity in the impugned order, adopting the rate of compensation as fixed by Division Bench this Court in Gajraj (Supra), in the .matter of adjoining village-Holnmbi .. ""ID:DCC: F:J.ge 8 I ---- _, __ . ._.:. ------·- l 2\ Kalan. Even the reduction of the rate of compensation assessed @11.5?/'·' compound interest from the date of Notification of 15th November, 1 996 in Gajraj (Supra) to date of Notification of 5th April, 1995 in the instam case is concerned, I find the same to be in conformity with the decisii:m (Supra), wherein annual compounding @11.5% has beer approved.

¶18As neither side could find fault in the impugned judg.ne:nL determining the m;1rket value of the land in question pei· acre, therefore, the appeals of the claimant as well as cross-objections o, the respondents are dismissed, with no order as to costs. Accordingly, al the above-mentioned appeals and cross-objections are disposed of vvitl· direction to the Registry to remit the compensation amount, if any .. deposited by either side with the Registrar General of this Court, to the concerned Reference Com1. --- UNILGAUR) JUDGE December 23, 2011 rs Page 9

Ll I % IN THE HIGH COURTOFDELHIATNEWDELHli Reserved on: 8th November, 2011 Pronounced on: 23rd December, 2011 + LA APP.415/2011, LA.APP 608/2009, LA.APP129/2010, 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 ?14/2010, LA.APP219/2010, LA.APP 229/2010, LA.APP233/2010, LA.APP 234/2010, LA.APP 235/2010, LA.APP ?36/2010, LA.APP 237/2010, LA.APP 240/2010, LA.APP ?41/2010, LA.APP 255/2010, LA.APP 256/2010 & CM No. 12934/2011 (cross objections), LA.APP 257/2010, LA. APP. 258/2010, LA. APP 259 /2010, LA.APP ?71/2010, 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 550/2010, 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 57112010, 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 77112010, 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, 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-objections), 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/?011 (Relating to Notification No. F.No.11(36)/94-L&B/LA/5722 dated 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. - ·-- ... --------· 5th April, 1995 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition 1894 & Award No. 19/97-98, Village- Shahpur Garhi, Delhi) Present: CORAM: 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. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR