Union of India v. Kamlesh Kumari & Ors

ORDER

03.11.2011 LA.APP. 663/2011 & CM No.18598/2011 (u/0 41 R 5 & Sec.151 CPC)

¶1Impugned order of 8. 7.2011 grants compensation of per acre in respect of land of Village - Ghevra, Delhi, which was acquired vide Notification No. F.11 (81)/2000/ L& B/LA/18032 dated

6.2.2003 under Section 4 of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894. According to the appellant, the impugned order grants exorbitant compensation to the respondents.

¶2This Court in LA APP 489/2008, titled as 1Chiranji La/ Vs. UO/ & Anr.' decided on 2.6.2011, has already dealt with the aforesaid Notification and had observed as under:- '18. Thus, with respect to price per bigha as of 11.6.1996 and giving 10% increase per annum LA.APP 663/2011 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. • the fair market value of the land of the appellants works out to per bigha and thus we dispose of the appeals enhancing the compensation payable to the appellant to per bigha'.

¶3Undisputedly, the decision in Chiranji La/ (Supra), would govern the fate of this appeal as well, thereby requiring dismissal of this appeal.

¶4Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed and pending application stands disposed of as infructuous . NOVEMBER 03, 2011 rs LA.APP 663/2011 Page 2 .. $-18-23 & 75 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 2"d June, 2011 + LA.APP .489/2008 CHIRANJI LAL Through: UOI & ANR. Through: LA.APP.1089/2008 SH.NET RAM Through: UOI & ANR. Through: LA.APP.1090/2008 SH.HANS RAJ & ORS. Through: UOI & ANR. Through: ..... Appellant Mr.Shyam Sunder, Advocate. versus Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar and Mr.Ashish Tanwar, Advocates for UOI. Ms.lndrani Ghosh & Ms.Shobhna Takiar, Advocates for DDA. ..... Appellant Mr.S.Chaturvedi and Mr.R.S.Dalal, Advocates. versus . . . Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar and Mr.Ashish Tanwar, Advocates for UOI. Ms.lndrani Ghosh & Ms.Shobhna Takiar, Advocates for DDA. ..... Appellant Mr.S.Chaturvedi and Mr.R.S.Dalal, Advocates. versus Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar and Mr.Ashish Tanwar, Advocates for UOI. Ms.lndrani Ghosh & Ms.Shobhna Takiar, Advocates for DDA. page 1 ofB LA.APP.1091/2008 RAJ SINGH & ORS. Through: UOI & ANR. Through: LA.APP.l162/2008 VINOD MITTAL Through: UOI & ANR. Through: LA.APP.l163/2008 SEEMA DEVI BANSAl Through: UOI & ANR. Through: LA.APP.212/2011 HARI DUTT & ORS. Through: ..... Appellants Mr.S.Chaturvedi and Mr.R.S.Dalal, Advocates. versus . . . Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar and Mr.Ashish Tanwar, Advocates for UOI. Ms.lndrani Ghosh & Ms.Shobhna Takiar, Advocates for DDA. ..... Appellant Mr.S.Chaturvedi and Mr.R.S.Dalal, Advocates. versus . . . Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar and Mr.Ashish Tanwar, Advocates for UOI. Ms.lndrani Ghosh & Ms.Shobhna Takiar, Advocates for DDA. ..... Appellant Mr.S.Chaturvedi and Mr.R.S.Dalal, Advocates. versus Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar and Mr.Ashish Tanwar, Advocates for UOI. Ms.lndrani Ghosh & Ms.Shobhna Takiar, Advocates for DDA. ..... Appellants Mr.S.Chaturvedi and Mr.R.S.Dalal, Advocates. page 2 ofB t· \ UOI & ANR. Through: CORAM: versus . .. .. Respondents Mr.Sanjay Poddar and Mr.Ashish Tanwar, Advocates for UOI. Ms.lndrani Ghosh & Ms.Shobhna Takiar, Advocates for DDA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAjOG

¶1Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶2To be referred to Reporter or not?

¶3Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

¶1Vide impugned decisions the Reference Court has held that the appellants are not entitled to any enhancement of the compensation assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector.

¶2The appeals relate to lands in village Ghewra, which were the subject matter of acquisition pursuant to a notification dated

6.2.2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894.

¶3In the decision dated 19.12.2008, deciding a batch of Land Acquisition Appeals, lead matter being LA.APP.No.193/2006 Pratap Sinqh (Thru LRs) vs. UOI & 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 market value of the land in village page3of8 \ Tikri Kalan, as of 16.11.1995 per bigha for Block-A land and pertaining to a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated

11.6.1996, had determined the compensation for Block-A land at per bigha.

¶4Thereafter, with reference to village Tikri Kalan, pertaining to a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 on 17.12.2002, the Division Bench determined the compensation at per bigha on the following reasoning:- "Since we have revised the market value in respect of the aforesaid Award at for Block-A and for Block-B. further enhancement 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 @12o/o 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 down. Therefore, taking holistic view of the matter and balancing the upward and downward trends, we are of the opinion that interest of justice would be subserved if enhancement is granted @10o/o p.a."

¶5It be noted that in the instant cases, I am concerned with a notification dated

6.2 .. 2003 which is 50 days after the notification dated 17.12.2002, which was discussed by the Division Bench in para 49 of its decision, relevant extract whereof is reproduced herein above.

¶6A perusal of the decision of the Division Bench would reveal that in para 42, pertaining to the notification dated

16.11.1995 it had determined the rate per bigha and applied 12o/o enhancement per annum, in para 45, with page 4 ofB reference to the date 16.11.1995 and the figure of stood enhanced to pertaining to a notification dated

11.6.1996.

¶7It is thus apparent that in the relevant extract of para 49, hereinabove extracted, there is an obvious typographic error. If in the second line extracted herein above, the figure has to be then the date in the 4th line has to be 11.6.1996 and not 17.11.1995. Vice versa, if the date in the 4th line has to be taken as 17.11.1995, the sum in second line has to be taken at 15,160/-.

¶8The error by the Division Bench has resulted, it is apparent, in a higher sum being worked out at per bigha and for which I am told necessary applications seeking review/correction have been filed before the Division Bench.

¶9The Division Bench would obviously do the necessary correction, however, as far as this Court is concerned, it is the reasoning which is relevant and not computation thereof.

¶10The reasoning of the Division Bench would be that as of

17.11.1995 the market value assessed would be 15,160/- per bigha and the same would stand enhanced to per , bigha as of 11.6.1996.

¶11The further reasoning of the Division Bench which binds this Court would be the finding 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°/o per annum and thereafter it was 10% per annum.

¶12If I was to apply the aforesaid logic of the Division Bench, which binds me, treating the fair compensation assessed at page 5 ofB per bigha as of 11.6.1996 or conversely taking the figure to be as of 17.11.1995, compensation as of

6.2.2003 would require to be worked out in view of the percentage increase held admissible by the Division Bench.

¶13If I assess the compensation with respect to the date

17.11.1995, I will have to take the base figure off2,15,160/- and enhance it by 12%> for one year and thereafter 10% per annum. If I take the figure of the base date would be

11.6.1996 and thereaft€r the percentage increase would be 10o/o per annum.

¶14I prefer to adopt the latter date i.e. 11.6.1996 and hence the higher sum of per bigha. C

¶15Learned 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 till the year 2008, the percentage increase per year was 16%.

¶16Learned counsel further submits that the reduction in the incremental value of the land from 12o/o per annum to 10°/o per annum determined by the Division Bench, with respect to the , notification dated

17.12.2002 has to be appreciated with reference to the sale deeds pertaining to village Tikri Kalan, and discussion of the Division Bench shows that post 1996, in village Tikri Kalan, the percentage increase had come down vis-a-vis the previous sale deeds; and whereas in the past the increase was 12o/o, post 1996 it came down to 10°/o. Counsel seeks to urge that as regards village Ghewra there was no such evidence. page 6 ofB

¶17The pleas by learned counsel for the appellants are rejected for the reason the Government of Delhi issues the notifications pertaining to the minimum rate it would pay and these rates apply to all agricultural lands in Delhi irrespective of the situation, potentiality 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 Government should bind the Government. As regards the second plea, we see no reasoning in the Division Bench judgment as is projected by learned counsel that the Division Bench found that in village Tikri Kalan the percentage increase \ in land pric2 post 1996 came down to 10% per annum and not in village Ghewra. In fact the decision would show that the Division Bench treated lands in the two villages at par.

¶18Thus. with respect to the price per bigha as of

11.6.1996 and giving 10o/o increase per annum the fair market value of the land of the appellants works out to per bigha and thus we dispose of the appeals enhancing the compensation payable to the appellants to 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. UOI.

¶19Proportionate costs are also awarded. page 7 ofB

¶20All pendin·g applications stand disposed of in terms of the prayers made therein and cross objections, if any, filed by Union of India are dismissed. june 2, 2011 dk

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. page 8 ofB

f $-12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 663/2011 % UNION OF INDIA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Advocate versus KAMLESH KUMAR I & ORS. .. ... Respondents Through: Mr. O.P. Saxena & Mr. Vaibhav Sethi, Advocates CORAM: HON.BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR