Rajkumar v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER

23.12.2011 For orders see LA.APP No. 608 of 2009. 4R) JUDGE December 23, 2011 rs S LA.App No.608/2009 & Connected matters Page 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 8111 November, 2011, Pronounced on: 2311 December , 2011 ± LAAFP No0608/200 Si-1RI RAMESH KUMAR Appellaut Through: Mr. Deepak Khosla & Mr. V.P. Ran.a, Advocates. versus UNiON OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: -Mr. Sanjay Podar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kurnar Pathak, Ms.. K.Kamoudi Kiran, Mr. Mohitrao Jadhav & Ms. Navlin Swain, Advocates. AND -I- LA APP.415/2011, LA.APP 608/2009, LA.APPI29/ 201. 0JAAL1 130/201.0,LA.APP 176/2010 ' &CM No. 12873/20111, LA.APP 177/2010, LA.APP 179/2010, LA.APP 184/2010, LAJ\PP 214t01 LA.APP219/2010, LA.APP 229/2010, LA.APP233/2010,LA.APP 234/2010, LA.APP 23 5/2010, LA.APP /201 LA.APP 240/2010, LA.APP 241/2010, LA.APP 255/2010JAII 256/2010 & CM No. 12934/2011 (cross obj.ctio),_LA.APP 257/2010, LA.APP258/2010, -LA. APP 259 /2010, LA.APP 271/2010, LAAPP - - 413/2010, LA.APP 414/2010, LA.APP 415/2010, LA.APP 416/20IQ 417/2010 & CM No.3584/201 1 (cross objections), L1P S LA.APP • 419/2010, LA.APP 425/2010, LAIAPP 453/2010, LA.APP546/20iQ LA.APP 547/2010, LA.APP 548/2010 LA.APP 549/201.0, LAAPP 550/2010, LA.APP 551/2010, LA.APP 552/2010, _ LA.APP5I 1 0, LA.APP 554/2010, LA.APP 555/2010, LA.APP 556/201QLA:A11 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, LAJ\PP 564/2010, LA.APP 565/2010 LA.APP 567/2010, LA.APP 5601 LA.APP 569/2010, LA.APP 570/2010, LA.APP 571/2010 A 572/2010, LA.APP 573/2010, LA.APP 574/2010, LA.APP 575/20 LA.APP 576/2010, LA.APP 770/2011, LA.APP 771/2010, LA.APP 772/20 10, LA.APP 773/2010, LA.APP 774/2010, LA.AP2JftQ - LA.App No.608/2009 & Connected matters ---••]• . Page 1 LA.APP 805/2010, LA.APP 822/2010, LA.APP 824/2010 & ( I No.10333/2011 (cross-objection), LA.APP 864/2010, LA.APP 90 l/20iO 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 (Clvi No.12875/2011 & CM No.12876/2011 (cross objections), LA.APP 154/2011, LA.APP 158/2011, LA.APP 274/2011, LA.APP 368/20i1 LA.AIP 379/2011, LA.APP 384/2011 & LA.APP 411/2011 (Relating to Notification No. F.No.1 1(36)/94-L&B/LA/5722 dated 5 April, 1995 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1 894 Award No. 19/97-98, Village-Shahpur Garhi, Delhi) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER

23.12.2011 The above captioned appeals arise out of Award No. 19/97-9 8 ol' the concerned Land Acquisition Collector pertaining to the agricultural land in the revenue estate of Village-Shahpur Gai-hi, Delhi, which was cquircd by the respondent vide Notification of 5[h 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 @ ZI,67,000/- per bigha. In the Reference sougt under Section 18 of the Land Acquii1;ion S Act, 1 894 by the claimants/ land owners i.e,. the appellants, the Reference Court has enhanced the compensation to 8, 16,720/- per acie. Not satisfied with the aforesaid enhancement of15,120/-per acre for the: acqu il-ed land, appellants have come up in these appeals to seek much higher compensation i.e. enhanced compensation @ 100/- per square yard. For .development of Freight Complex in Narela Project, v;ide Notification of 51 April, 1995, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition LAApp No.608/2009 & Connected notters Page 2 1° .1% S • H. Act, a large area of agricultural land measuring 733 bighas and 10 biswas of Village-Shahpur. Garhi, Delhi was acquired by the respondents. The factual details disclosing as to how in pursuance to the afbresaid 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 i.rn]:)ugned judgment and is not required to be recapitulated. Before the Reference Court, assessment of the market value of the acquired land in question was sought on. the basis of DDA predetermined rate of the year 1992-93 pertaining to Naiela Residential Scheme and on the strength of DSIDC. approved land rate for allotment of plots in Nareta Industrial Complex, which stands negated in. the impugned order while relying upon decision of the Apex Court in Union of India Vs Ram P/iooi (2003) 10 SCC 167. On the aspect of potentiality of the acquired land in question being near the developed land, Reference Court has extensively relied upon Division Bench decision of this Court in Gajraj Singh Vs. Union of India 2006 VI AD (Delhi) 13 in ma1ntining enhancement @11.5% from the effective date of government pilicy of fixing minimum price of agricultural lahd.s in Delhi, till Notification under Section. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued. Noting that the boundary of Village-Shahpur Garhi touches the boundary of Village-ilolambi Kalan, Reference Court in the impugned judgment has assessed the compensation in the instant case on the basis of the compensation, assessed by this Court in Gajraj Sing/i Supra) relating to Notification of I 5' November, 1996, under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act., 1894, pertaining to Village - Holambi Kalan. In these appeals, at the final1iearing, the counsels present on behalf of the appellants as well as senior counsel for the respondents were heard and with their assistaice, the impugned judgment and the record was LA.App No.608/2009 & Conncted matters . Page 3 perused. Since the submissions advanced by both 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 apl:)eais on behalf of the appellants. These are: - 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 surround ccl by the biggest colony of Asia namely Rohini and the land was acquired for the commercial activities; It

ii) that LAC has not taken into consideration that • land has been acquired for commercial activities such as for setting of freight complex, therefore, mark(t value of the land should be fixed at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per sq.rneter. •

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; that land of the petitioner ; 5 between 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; . 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.'

¶7• In 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.60812009 & Connected matters Page 4 question was agricultural at the time of issuance of Notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act in question. The mam 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 ancl 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 I)DA, and they rely upon Letter of Allotment (EX. PW-l/A) of a plotin Narela industrial Complex @ Z 650/- per square meter in the year 199() by 1)SJDC. It is also claimed by the appellants that allotment of aiterni.te plot under the Narela Residential Scheme by DDA in the year 1992-93, was available @ 650/- per square meter as per demand cu.m allctmqnt letter (LX. PW2/1).. Thus, seeking parity with aforesaid rates developed lands, enhancement in compensation is sought by the appellants. .

¶9On the factual aspect, it stancEs noted in the impugned judgni.nt that the land of the villages adjoining the village in question, incIudig village-1-lolambi Kalan, has been acquired for the development lof industrial area and Narela residential area in Narela. Conceding that he 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 so1ly for the development of fftight complex in Narela. However, it was disputed that the acquired land, in ... -".-.-. LA.App No.608/2009 & Connected matters . Pie 5 r2 question is surrounded by any developed colony and thus, it was contended that the appellants cairnot claim enhancement of the compensation by relying upon the rate of land in Narela Industrial Complex or under the Narela Residential Scheme floated by DDA. In this regard reliance was placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in La! Cliand Vs. Union of India & Anr. (2009) 15 SCC 769. Reliance was also placed upon a decision of a Coordinate Bnch of, this Court in LA.APP 266/2008 Jai Sing/i Vs Union of India & Ann rendered on 23d August, 2011, wherein in relation to this village, pertaining to an r acquisition of land vide Notification of 16' May, 2002, amount of compensation was determined at 18,65,500/- per acre while relying upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Gajraj Sing/i Vs. Uüon of'Jndia 2006 IV AD (Delhi) 13. .10. Even 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-Holambi Kalan, in relation to Notification of 15111 November, 1996, the compensation determined was 9,76,121/- per acre for A Categoy land and @9,51,121/- per acre for B Category land. Reference Court has rightly concluded that grounds of challenge . laid to the Award, as noted in paragraph No.6 herein above, against the Award in question, remains unsubstantiated by the appellants. While relying upon two decisions of the Apex Court in Bhim Singh Vs. State of Haryaiui (2003) .10 SCC 529 & Union of India V. Rani Phool (2003) 10 SCC 167, claim of the appellants to apply DDA and I)SIDC rates to the land in question stands repelled by holding thb.t no willing purchaser would buy agricultural land in question at the rate on which government is allotting developed land. -.-..- .,, ........_ ...-.- ---.-...- LA.App No. 60812009 & Connected matters P a ge 1 6 (LI ic

¶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. Infac, Apex Court in its recent decision in La! cliand 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 cannot be the basis for calculation of the market vi]ue of the acquired undeveloped lancEs. The peiinent observations made in paragraphs No.44 & 48 in La! C'Iiand ('Supra), which deserves to be highlighted, are as under:- • I '44. One of the recognized methods for determination of market value is with reference to the opinion of experts. The • ' estimation of market value by such sta1utoriy constituted • Expert Committees, 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, 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 as!sessment procedure (either streetrise, or roadwise, or areawise, or villagewise) and finalized qfler • inviting objections and published in the gazette. Be that as it may.

¶48Even ifthe relied upon transaction is only Iwo to three years prior to the acquisition, the Court should, before . adopting a standard escalation, satisj5.' itself that there were no adverse circumstances. For example, lf 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 yeai 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'n 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/ar a 1981 acquisition. ._•.. ..•,•, .,......• ,....• -..-..•,•, ,•. •-__.. ••...• ... C S. •' •Z; Zl= LA.App No.608/2009 & Connected: matters • Page 7 I I S, a The aforesaid decision of the Apex Court in La! Singh (Supi'a), has been lollowed by a Coordinate Bench of this Curt in Jai Singh (Supra, which also applies on all fours in these matters as well. On the potentiality aspect, neither the map / sizra (EX. PW3/A) nor any other evidence, establishes that apart from the DSI1C, there is any development in the vicinity of the acquired land. As already observed above, no sale instances of the nearby area are forthcoming to depict the potentiality of the area in question. It has to be kept in mind that th land in question has been acquired for developmeit of the freight complexand not for the development of a residential area. Except the oral asse.rti'oji of the appellants/ claimants that the acquired land is for the development of the Rohini Residential Area, there is no tangible evideice to esablis]a this factual assertion. Cross objections filed by the, respondents to maintain the rats of compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition C ollec toi: and not to adopt the ratio of decision in Gajraj Supra are found to be without substance for the reason that undisputedly Gajraj "Supra) has attained finality ind because it has not been shown by the respondents as to how this decision of the Division Bench of this Court has been wrongly applied by the Reference Court to the facts of the instant cases. Rather, I find that the Reference Court has correctly relied upon the decision in Gajraj S'iipa), to arrive at the correct market value of the acquired land in question. Since the decision of the Division Bench of this case in Gajraj Supra, has attained finality and it is the basis of the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Jai Sing/i .Supra), and is also the bsis of the impugned order, therefore, I find no infirmity in the impugned order, adopting the rate of compensation as fixed by Division Bench of this Court in Ga/raj ('Supra), in the matter of adjoining village-HoLi1bi. ' . LA.App No.608/2009 & Connected matters . Falge 8 () • Kalan. Even the reduction of the rate of compensation assessed @11.5% compound interest from the date of Notification of 15Uhi November, 1 996 in GaIraj Supra to date of Notification of April, 1995 in the instant case is concerned, I find the same to be in conformity with the decision in Gijrij Supra, wherein annual conwounding @11.5% has been approved.

¶18As neither side could find fault in the impugned judgment determining the market value of the land in question @8,16,720/- per acre, therefore, the appeals of the claimant as well as cross-objections of the respondents are dismissed, with no order as to costs. According1y, all ' the above-mentioned appeals and cross-objectjoiis are disposed of with 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 Court. UNILGAUR) JUDGE December 23, 2011 $

p IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on. 81h November, 2011 Pronounced on: 23rd December, 2011 + LA APP.415/201 1, 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 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 259 /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 550/2010, 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 (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 4 11/2011 (Relating to Notification No. F.No.1 1(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. g 5th April, 1995 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 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.Karnoudi Kiran, Mr. Mohit Rao Jadhav & Ms. Navlin Swain, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR .