Roop Chand v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER

23.12.2011 For orders see LA.APP No. 608 of 2009. JIL GAUR) JUDGE December 23, 2011 rs LA.App No.608/2009 & Connected matters Page 2 7"; V Kc^.prvP.don: 8"'Noveinber^jM. Pronouncedon: 23"^ December,2011. + LA»AFP No.608/2009.- SHMRAMESHKUMAK Mr''''vp'''Fana Through: Mr. Deepak Kliosla & Mi. V.i. i-uia, Advocates. versus UNIONOF INDIA &ORS. ••••• Respondente Through: -Mr. Sanjay Podar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Saiijay Kumar Pathak, Ms. K.Kanioudi Kiran, Mr. Mohitrao Jadhav & Ms. Navlui • Swam, Advocates. T.A.APP 240/2010, LA.AI'P_?41Pnin T.A.APP 255/2^^-.^ 7S6/7.010&CM NoU2934MllicB«sjte&^^ rAAPP258/2010 T.A. APP 259 /2Q10. LA.AP_LJ21M10^^^^:ALL 411/7010. LA.APP 414/7010. LA.APP i . .,.p PM NO1S84/2011 (cross 410/7010 1,A.APP 425/2010. l.A.APP 453/2010, LA.APPJ46/.4M^ TAAPP 547/7010 LA.APP 548/2010. TAAPP 549/2010, L/v.ALP LA.APP 554/2010, LA APP 555/2010. LA.APP 556/2010.

7.7»nin TA APP 55R/2010. LA.APP SSgranOa-AAf^mffl-jL r AAPP-^fil/^OlO LA.APP 562/2010. T.AAPP 563/2010. LA.APP 564/7010. LA APP 565/2010. LA.APP 567/2010. LA.APP'568,20,^ I AAPP 569/2010. TA APP 570/7010. LA.APP 571/2010J^A^MS 572/2010 T.A APP 573/7010. LA.APP 574/2010. LA.APP 575,/2m l.A.APP 576/2010. LAAPP_770/7011 T.A.APP 771/2010^^^ 777/2010. LA APP 773/2010 l.A.APP 774/2010. LA.APP 77.)/2010, LA.AppNo.608/2009&Connectedmatters • Iage1 V LAAPP 80-V2Q1Q. LA.APP 822/2010. LA.APP 824/2010 & C]M NQ.10333/20n rci-oss-obiectionlLA.APP 864/2010,LA.APP 901/2010. LAAPP 902/2010, LA.APP 962/2010,.LA.APP 1014/201^0,/LA.APP -mr^Tol T.A.APP 1016/2010. LA.APP 1027/2016, '^APP 1-03272010,LA.APP 1035/2010.LA.APP 1037/201-0.LA.APP l^ZITTCT & CM No.12952/2011 rcross-obiections). 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 -th (Relating to NotificationNo. F.No.ll(36)/94-L&B/LA/5722dated 5 April, 1995 issuedunder Section4ofthe Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 & Award No. 19/97-98, Village-Shahpur Garhi, Delhi) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER

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 .acquiredby the respondentvide Notificationof 5"' April, 1995 under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894. The market-price of the acquired land in question-was determined by the Land Acquisition Collector@?8,01,600/-per acre or @11,67,000/-perbigha.

¶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 enliancement 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.

¶3For development of Freight Complex, in Narela Project, vide Notificationof 5^'' April, 1995, under Section4 of the'LandAcquisition LA.App No.608/2009 & Connected matters Page 2 6) ir"'' a; «Vi ii I' St : I sv"- •JX'.' ''i>' tf' :• \:X It! V t Act, a large area of agriculturalland measuring 733 bighas and 10 biswas ol 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 beforetheReferenceCourtstandsnotedin the impugned judgment and is not requiredto be recapitulated.

¶4Before the Reference Court, assessment of the market value of the acquiredland in questionwas soughtonthe basis of DDA predetermined rate of the year 1992-93 pertaining to Nareia Residential Scheme and on the strengthofDSIDC approvedlandrate for allotmentof plots in Nareia IndustrialComplex, which stands negated in the impugnedorder while relying upon decision of the Apex Court in Union of India Kv. Ram Phooi (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 decisionof this Court in Gajraj Singh Vs. Union of India 20,06 VI AD (Delhi)-in maintaining enhancement@11.5% from the effectivedate Of governmentpolicy of fixing minimum price of agricultural lands in Delhi, till Notification under Section4 ofthe Land AcquisitionAct was issued.Notingthat the boundary of Village-Shahpur Garhi touches the boundaryof Village-HolambiKalan,ReferenceCourtin the impugnedjudgmenthas assessed the compensationin the instant case on the basis of the compensation, assessedby this Courtin GajrajSingh (Supra)relatingto Notificationof November, 1996y under Secti6n 4 of Land AcqiiisitionAct, 1894, pertaining to Village ~ Holambi Kalan.

¶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.App No.608/2009 & Connected matters Page 3 V perused. Since tiie submissions advanced by botli the sides in these appealswere common,therefore,with the consentof learnedcounselfoi the parties,these appeals and cross-objectionsare being decidedby this common order.

¶6The grounds of challenge to the Award of Land Acquisition Collectorbefore 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 valuethoughthe land ofthe petitionerhas got potential value as the land of the petitioneris surroundedby the biggestcolonyofAsia namelyRohini and the land was acquiredfor the commercialactivities;

ii) • that LAC has, not taken into considerationthat • land has been acquiredfor commercialactivitiessuch 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 petitioneris betweentwo roads including a national highway i.e. Government Karnal Road, and Delhi Narela Road, therefore, it has gretit 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 on behalfofthe appellantsbeforethis Courtto challengethe; impugnedorder of the Reference Court. Undisputedly, the land use of the acquired land in LA.App No.608/2009 & Connected matters • Page 4 \J V question was agriculturalat the time of issuance of Notificationunder Section4 ofLand AcquisitionAct in question.The main groundto seek enhancementof compensationput forth on behaljaofthe appellantsis the potentialvalueofthe land in question.Thoughthe standofthe appellants herein before the Reference Court was that the land in question is strategicallylocatedfrom the commercialand industrialpointof view, as it is just two kilometres away from Narela Green Mandi and thi'ee kilometres away from DSIDC Industrial Complex and that it has a j^reat marketvalueandpotentiality,as it has been acquiredfor the development of Rohini Residential Scheme.

¶8Appellants claim that acquired land is in close proximity of hidustrialAreadevelopedbyDSIDC andresidentialcolonydevelopedby DDA, and they rely.uponLetterof Allotment(EX. PW-l/A) of a plot in NarelaIndustrialComplex@^650/-per squaremeterin the year 1990 by DSIDC. It is also claimed by the appellants that allotment of alternate plot under the NarelaResidentialSchemeby DDA in the year 1992-93, was avaikble @ ?650/- per square meter as per d,emand 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 acquired land is in proximity of the industrial area developed by DSIDC, learned senior counsel for the respondent has clarified that the purpose of acquisition of the land in question is solely for the development of freight complex in Narela. However, it was disputed that the acquired land in LA.App No.608/2009&Connectedmatters Page 5 /' •o 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 fate of land in Narela Industrial Complexor underthe NarelaResidentialSchemefloatedby DDA. In this regard reliance was placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in Lai. Chand Vs, Union of India & Anr, (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 Anr, , rendered on 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 Division Bench decision of this Court in Gajraj Singh 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-Holainbi Kalan, in relation to Notification of 15"' November, 1996, the compensationdeterminedwas @ ^9,76,121/-per acre for A Category land and @^9,51,121/-peracre for B Categoryland.

¶11ReferenceCourt has rightly concluded-that 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. StateofHaryana (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 holding that no willingpurchaserwould buy agriculturalland in questionat the rate on' whichgovernmentis allottingdevelopedland. LA.AppNo.608/2009&Connectedmatters Page (3

¶13During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the apj3ellants" were not able to show that the aforesaid decisions are inapplicable nor any decision to the contrary was cited. Infact, Apex Court' in its recent decision in Lai Chand Vs. Union of India (2009) 15 SCC 769 has reiterated in ho 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 acquiredundevelopedlands. The pertinent observationsmade in paragraphs No.44 & 48 in Lai Chand (Supra), which deserves to be highhghted, are as under:- , /• ' '44. One of the recognizedmethodsfor determination ofmarketvalue,iswith referenceto the opinionofexperts. The ^ estimation of market value by such statutorily constituted ^ Expert Committees,as expertevidencecan thereforeform, the basis for determining the market value in land, acquisition cases, as a relevantpiece of evidence. It will he hoyveveropen, to either party to place evidence to dislodge the presumption that mayflowfrom suchguidelinemarketvalue. We, hoM'ever, hasten to add that the guideline market value can be a releva.nt piece of evidence only if they are assessed by statutorily appointed Expert Committees, in accordance with the prescribed assessm.ent procedure (either streetyvise, or roqdwise, or areayvise, or villageyvise) and finalized after inviting objections and published in.the gazette. Be that as it may.

¶48Even if the relied upon transaction is only t^vo 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 V the year 2009, it may not be possibleto determinethe 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 a.reas of the country 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 m.ay. It is clear that the award made in regard to a. 1961 acquisition mhU not be of any use for determining the m.arket value for a 1981 acquisition.' LA.App No.608/2009 & Connected matters Page 7

¶14The aforesaiddecisionofthe Apex Courtin LaiSingh (Supra),has been followedby aCoordinateBenchofthis Courtin JaiSingh (Supra), which also applies on all fours in these matters as well.

¶15. On 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.Ithas to be kept in mind that the land mquestionhas beenacquiredfor developmentofthe freightcomplexand /' not for the developmentofaresidentialarea. Exceptthe Oral assertionof the appellajits/claimantsthat-theacquiredland is for the developmentof ^ the RohiniResidentialArea,thereis no tangibleevidenceto establishthis factual assertion.

¶16Cross objectionsfiled by the respondentsto maintainthe rate of compensationfixed by the Land AcquisitionCollector'and not to adopt the ratioofdecisionin Gajmj (Supra),are found to be withoutsubstance for tiie reason that undisputedlyGajmj (Supra)has attainedfinalityand becauseit has not been shown by the respondentsas to how this decision of the DivisionBench of tliis Court has been wrongly applied by the ReferenceCourt to'the facts of the instantcases. Ratlier,I find that the Reference.Courthas correctlyrelieduponthe decisionin Gajrq/(Supra), to arriveat tlie correctmarketvalueofthe acquired.landin question.

¶17.Since the decision of the DivisionBench-of this case in Gajraj (Supra), has attained finality and it is the basis of tlie decision of a' CoordinateBenchofthis Courtin JaiSingh (Supra),and is also tlie 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 tliematterofadjoiningvillage-Holambi LA.AppNo.608/2009&Connectedmatters - .Page 8 & If' 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 tlie-impugned judgment determimngthe market value of the land in question @?8,16,720Aper acre, tlierefore,the appealsoftlie claimantas well as cross-objectionsof ,the respondentsare dismissed,with no orderas to costs. Accordingly,all the above-mentionedappeals and cross-objectionsare disposedof with direction to the Registry to remit the compensationamount, if any, depositedby eitherside with the RegistrarGeneralof this Court, to the concerned Reference Court. V .December 23, 2011 IS LA.AppNo.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. 12934/201] [ (cross obiections). 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 Ccross-obiectionY LA.APP 864/2010, LA.APP 901/2010. LA.APP 902/2010. TA.APP 962/2010. LA.APP 1014/2010. LA.APP 1015/2010^1 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 No.12952/2011 fcross-obiections), LA.APP 1039/2010 CCM No.12875/2011 & CM No.12876/2011 Ccross obiections'^ 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 (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. V 5"" April, 1995 issuedunder Section4 ofthe LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 & AwardNo. 19/97-98,Village-ShahpurGarhi,Delhi) Present: Mr. DeepakKhosla & Mr. V.P. Rana, Advocatesfor 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