LA.APP./467/2010 of LOKESH & ANR Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on : February 08, 2012Pronounced on : March 14, 2012

+LA.APP. 467/2010

LOKESH & ANRAppellantThtough:Mr.B.D.Sharma,Mr.S.K.Rout,Ms.Sukhda Dhamija andMr.B.K.Routray, Advocates

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANRRespondentThrough:Mr.SanjayPoddar, SeniorAdvocatewithMr.SanjayPathak,Ms.K.KiranPathak, Mr.Surya Nath Pandey,Mr.Yeeshu Jain and Ms.Navlin Swain,Advocates for LAC/UOI

(Relating to NotificationNo. F.7/60/200l/L&B/LA/MRTS(S/W)/7674

of 05.08.2003issuedunder Section4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894& Award No. 5/2005-06of VillageMasoodabad,Delhi)

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

ORDER14.03.2012

For orders see LA.APP.421/2010, titled as Suresh Prasadalias Hari Kishanvs. Union ofIndia & Anr.

Signature Not VerifiedSigning Date:03.10.2024 17:08:11March 14,2012Certify that the digital and physical file havebeen compared and the digital data is as perthe physical file and no page is missing.pkb

-(SunSgau^JUDGE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on : February 08, 2012Pronounced on : March 14, 2012 '

LA.APP.421/2010(VILLAGEMASOODABAD)

PRASADalias HAW KISHANThrough;Mr.B.D.Sharma,Mr.S.K.Rout,Ms.Sukhda Dhainija andMr.B.K.Routray, Advocates

Appellant

versus

UNION 01-' INDIA&ANR.ANR.

&ANR.ANR.Respondentsriirough:Mr.SanjayPocidar,SeniorAdvocatewith Mr.Sanjay Pathalc,Ms.K.Kiran .Pathak,Mr.SuryaNath Pandey,Mr.YeeshuJain and Ms.NavlinSwain,Advocates for LAC/UOI

AND

r.A.App.No. 421/2010 LA.App.No. 441/2010 LA.App. No. 442/2010LA.App.No. 443/2010 LA.App.-No.444/2010 l.A.App.No 446/2010LA.App.No. 455/2010 LA.App.No. 456/2010 l.A.App,No. 457/2010LA.App.No. 458/2010 LA.App.No. 459/2010 LA.App. No. 460/2010LA.App.No. 462/2010 j^^A^AACLj^).463/2010, L/^p. No. 464/2010465/20.1OQ^.App.No. 467/201oTrXAnn.No. 468/2010LA.App.No. 469/2010 LA.App. No. 470/2010 LA.App.No. 471/2010LA.App.No. 478/2010 LA.App.No. 580/2010 LA.App.No. 583/2010585/2010LA.App.No.lOl1/2010LA.App.No.1012/2010 LA.App.No.1013/2010 LA.App.No. 12/2012

AND

APPKALSFILEDBY UNION OF INDIA

l-A.App.No. 59/2012LA.App.No. 710/201I

[-A.App.No. 748/2010 l.A.App No 749/9010No. 748/2010 l.A.App No 749/9010 748/2010 l.A.App No 749/9010 l.A.App No 749/9010 No 749/9010 749/9010KA-App.No. 751/2010 l.A.App.No. 753/2010 l.A.App.Na 754/2'o,0

LA.App.No. 755/2010 LA.App.No. 756/2010 LA.App.No. 858/2010LA.App.No. 859/2010 LA.App.No. 860/2010 LA.App.No. 861/2010LA.App.No. 862/2010 LA.App.No. 863/2010 LA.App.No. 865/2010LA.App.No. 866/2010 LA.App.No. 867/2010 LA.App.No. 868/2010LA.App.No. 869/2010 LA.App.No. 267/20.11 LA.App.No. 752/2010LA.App. No. 21/2012LA.App.No. 56/2012

(Relating to NotificationNo. F.7/60/2001/L&B/LA/MRTS(S/W)/7674of 05.08.2003issuedunder Section4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894& Award No. 5/2005-06ofVillageMasoodabad,Delhi)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

ORDER14.03.2012

1.For 'NajafgarhDepot, MKTSProject',610 bighas and 13 biswasof land of Village Masoodabad was acquired vide Notificationof 5^'^August, 2003 under Section4 ofthe Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 whichwas followed by Notificationof 8^' August, 2003 under Section 6 oftheLand AcquisitionAct, 1894 resultingin passingofAward No.5/2005-06grantingcompensationat the rate ofRs.15.70 lacs per acre on the basisof indicativeprice fixed by the Governmentof NCT of Delhi for theagriculturallands in Delhi.

2.In the reference sought by the claimants, interest (^10% perannum was granted by the ReferenceCourt for the periodoftwo years,i.e., from the date of fixing of the minimum agriculturalprice upto thedate oi Notification, i.e., compensation amount stood enhanced toRs.18,84,000per acre for the acquiredland in question.

3.In the instantturtherenhancementof Rs.50 lacs acreappeals, perIS sought by the claimants,whereasthe respondentin theirappeals havesought settingaside of the impugned order of the ReferenceCourt andrestorationof the Award. Since the grounds urged in these appeals is•lAApp.No. 421/2010&ConnectedAppealsofViii^geMasoodabad

common, therefore, by this common order, these appeals are beingdisposed of

4.On behalfof the appellants/claimants,it is urged that the learnedReferenceCourt has wronglytreated acquired lands as agriculturallandand did nottheof the land as appreciate potentiality acquii-ed buildingsite and assessmentof the compensationin respectof the acquiredlandought to have been made on the basis of the average auction rate ofresidentialand commercialplots in Dwarkaand the rates chargedby theDDA while allottingalternativeplots is valid basis to arrive at truemarketvalueofthe acquiredland in question.

5.During the course of hearing, it was pointed out by learnedcounsel for thethat Masoodabad was appellants/claimants Villageurbanizedin the 1963 and zonal was year developmentplan preparedbyDelhi-DevelopmentAuthorityin the year 1974 and the acquisitionoftheland in questionwas for the proposedresidentialpurpose.Much reliancewas placed upon Award (Ex.PW-1/3)pertainingto Village MangolpurKhuid and Award (bx.PW-1/4)of Village MohammadpurMunirkaofthe T.and Acquisition Collector, wherein compensation was assessedwhile taking into considerationthe L&DO rates. It is pointed out thatsome parcel of acquired land abuts the main Dclhi-Najafgarhmetalledroad and in the adjoiningVillageNangli Sakrawati,there are industriesand NajafgarhIndustrialAreais in the vicinity.

6.Accordmgto the learnedcounsel for the appellants/claimants,thebestpieceofevidence,i.e. allotmentofland in VillageMasoodabadand DDA to Delhi .Jal Board at the rate of Rs.20 lacs acreNajalgarhby perin the 1993 has beendiscarded the ReferenceCourt. year illegally byReliance is placed upon the decisions reported in Tindey &Ors. Vs.UnionofIndia&Anr, 2000(54)DRJ(DB) 384; P.N.Singhvs:Unionof

lAApp.No. 421/2010&ConnectedAppealsofVillage^

India, 1997 I AD (Del) 83; Hari Chand vs. Union ofIndia, 91 (2001)D[;r 602; DelhiDevelopmentAuthorityvs. LandAcquisitionCollector&Ors., 1j0(2006)D1 \(DB),AtmaSingh (died) through LRs kv. StateofHaryana & Anr., AIR 2008 SC 709; Mahahir Prasad Santuka andOrs. Vs Collector, Cuttack and Ors., (1987) 1 SCC 587; ThakurKuldeep Singh (D) Thr. L.R. & Ors vs. Union ofIndia & Ors., AIR2010 SC 1272; Om Prakash (D) by LRs &Ors. vs. Union ofIndia &Anr., 2004 VIII AD (SC) 37; Om PrakashStateofHaryana&Ors,2011 TV AD (SC) 382; Sagunthala(dead) through LRs vs. SpecialTehsildar (L.A.) and ors., AIR 2010 SC 984; Mahesh DattatrayThirthkarvs. State ofMaharashtra,AIR 2009 SC 2238, to assert thatthe compensationclaimedin theseappealsis justand reasonable.7.On behalfof the respondents,it was asserted by learned SeniorCounselfor the respondentsthat adoptionofthe auctionrates ofDDA orL&DO rates in respectof agriculturalland stands negated by the ApexCourtmdecision in Lai Chandvs. Union ofIndiaandAnr., (2009) 15SCC 769. It was also urged by learned counsel for the respondentsthatdespite Village Masoodabad being declared to be urbanized, theacquiredland in question continuedto be used as agriculturalland andtherefore, instances of Village Mangolpur Khurd andVillageMohammadpurMunirkaare ofno avail and the instanceofallotmentofland by DDA in favour of Delhi Jal Board cannot be treated to berepresentativepriceof the lands in the vicinityas the evidenceis lackingregarding said instances to be comparablefor determiningthe marketvalue of the land in question.Reliancewas placed upon decisionof theApex Court in Satpal&Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia, (1997) II SCC 423 toassertthat if in ashort period there is asharp increasein price,than theusualtrend in thesuch an instancecannot be taken as prevalent market,

LA.App.No. 421/2010&ConnectedAppealsofVillageMasoodabad

realistic price unless and until the reasons for such sharp rise areexplained and there is no explanation to Justify the adoption of Delhi JalBoard instance to determine the market value of the acquired land inquestion.

8.As regards the potentiality of the acquired -land in question isconcerned,it is contendedby learned Senior counsel for the respondentsthat no developmentactivity took place in the vicinity nor any buildingactivity had started in the adjoining areas despite Village Masoodabad declared as urban and so the decisions relied thebeing upon byappellants/claimants are distinguishable on facts.

9.In the appeals preferred by the respondents, enhancement in thecompensation amount is assailed on the ground that the annual increaseto be given is dependent upon the nature of evidence led and in theinstantmatters,there is no evidenceshowingincreasein the marketpriceof the land in questiontill its acquisition.It is assertedthat doing av/ayof classificationof acquired lands in question by Reference Court isillogical and without any Justification. Thus, setting aside of theimpugnedJudgmentand restoringofthe Award of the Land AcquisitionCollectoris soughtbythe respondents.

10.hactors and test to determinethe true marketvalueofthe acquiredland have been restated by the Apex Court in its recent decision inRadha Mudaliyar ys. Special TehsUdar (Land Acquisition) TamilNadu Housing Board, (2010) 13 SCC 384, in these words:-

"Comparablesales instances are the safest method fordeterminingthe market yahte of the acqinredland and aslaid down in Shaji Kuriakose v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd.,(2001) 7SCC 650, it shoiddsatisfy thefactors, inter alia,(I) the sale must be genuinetransaction:(2) the sale deedmust have been executed,at the time proximateto the dateof issuanceof notificationunder Section 4 ofthe Act; (3)

.A.App.No. 421/2010&ConnectedAppealsofVillageMasoodabad

Ihe land covered by the sale must be in the vicinityof theacquired land; (4) the land, covered, by the sale must besimilar to the acquiredland; and (5) size of the plot of theland covered by the sale be comparable to the acquiredland. The sales instancesshouldpreferably be closestto thedate of the notificationas then alone it would satisfy thetouchstone of the prmciples contemplated,under Section 23of the Act, as held, in Kanwar Singh v. Union of India,(1998)8 see 136. "

\ 1.Having heard learned counsel for the parties in these mattersandupon perusal of the impugned judgment, evidence on record and thedecisions,cited, I proceed on the premise that the burden of provinginadequacyofthecompensationamountisupontheappellants/claimants.Now it istobe seen astowhether thehave been successfulinthis burden orappellants/claimants dischargingnot.

12.No doubt, purpose for which the acquisition is made is anmiportantfactor, but the question as to whether the acquired land haspotential value or not, is primarily one of fact depending upon itscondition,situation,user to which it is put or is reasonablycapable ofbeing put and proximity to residential, commercial or industrial orinstitutional area. The existing amenities like water, electricity,possibilityoftheirfurtherextensionand the prospectsofdevelopmentinthe aiea have to be taken into consideration.It has been so reiteratedbythe Apex Court in Atma Singh (supra). It is in this context;I havescrutini/cdthe evidence on record and I find that there is hardly anyevidence regarding the topographyof the area adjoining the acquiredland in questionand the evidenceled regardingthe aks shizra (Ex.PW-2/1) of this villagedoes not throw any light on this vital aspect, exceptthat the evidence led to prove this documentadverselyreflects that onthe easternside ofVillageMasoodabad,there is Najafgarhdrain, which

lAApp.No. 421/2010&ConnectedAppealsofVillageMasoodabad^

instead of enhancingthe potentiality,rather diminishesit. The witnesswho was got examined to lorove the aks shizra of Village NanghSakrawati(l-x.PW-4/l)concedesthat the metalledroad betweenVillageNangli Sakrawati and Village Masoodabadis not reflected in the ahshizra.Evidenceofthis witness(PW-4)insteadofadvancingthe case ofthe appellants/claimants regarding the potentiality, reduces thepotentialityofthe acquiredland in question.

13.Thereis no evidenceto establishthe comparabilityofthe acquiredlands under Award(Ex.PW-1/3)pertainingto VillageMangolpurKhurdand under Award (Ex.PW-1/4)ofVillageMohammadpurMunirkawiththe acquiredland in question.Rather, as per evidenceof the concernedofficial (PW-10), Award (Ex.PW-10/1)pertained to West Patcl Nagaifor Metro Project. Thus, in the considered opinion ol this Court,ReferenceCourt has rightlyexcludedthe aforesaidAwards (Ex.PW-1/3& Ex.PW-l/4)to determinethe fair marketvalueofthe acquiredland inquestion. Selfserving depositionof claimantsregardingpotentialityofacquiredlands in question,in the absenceof corroborativeevidence,isnot enough to returnpositivefinding on this crucialaspect, paiticulailyin view of the fact that evidenceregardingindustriesbeing there in thevicinityof acquiredlands is lacking.14.So far as the DelhiJal Boardinstance(Ex.PW-4/1)is concerned,I find that even its comparabilitywith acquired land in question is notestablishedas the'witness(PW-5) who has deposed in respect of thistransactionhas concededthat he is not able to tell the distance from thesaid land to the land in question.Iherefore,ReferenceCourt has lightlynot relied the DelhiJalBoardinstanceupon(Ex.PW-4/1).

15.It has come in evidenceofthethattheie is no appellants/claimants

Governmenthospitalor collegein VillageMasoodabadand the evidence

icgaidingthe acquired land in question being surroundedby developedcolonies is lacking. In the face of such deficientevidence,there is no tor enhancementofin the instant Such ascope compensation appeals.conclusion is being drawn while keeping in view the ratio of theprecedents cited. Having failed to establish the potentiality of theacquired land in question, the appellants/claimantshave to remaincontent with the assessment of compensation on the basis of theindicativepriceofthe agriculturalland by GovernmentofNCT ofDelhias undisputedly,the acquired land in question were being used forat the time ofitsagriculturalpurpose acquisition.

16.Upon scrutiny of the evidence on record, it becomes quiteappaientthat despite Village hdasoodabadbeing declared as urban, theacquiredland in questionwere beingused for agriculturalpurposeby theandof indicative ofappellants/claimants so, adoptionprice agriculturallands Government of NCT of Delhi to be reasonable by appearscriteria for determining the market value of the acquired land inquestion, as on the date of Notificationunder Section 4 of.the LandAcquisitionAct, 1894. Such aview is beingtaken as the acquiredland inquestion was admittedlyundevelopedand therefore,adoption of DDAauctionrates or L&DO rates is not permissiblein view ofthe dictum ofthe Apex Court in Lai Chand (supra), which has been quoted withapproval by the Apex Court in its latest decision in Thakur KuldeepSingh (supra).17. increase of 10% annum.over and above theRegarding perminimum indicativeprice fixed by Governmentof NCl^ of Delhi, thesame cannot be assailedby the respondentas the ReferenceCourt hasdone so while decision of the Court in Union of relying upon ApexIndia vs. Harpat, (2009) 14 SCC 375. This Court finds that the

lAApp.No. 421/2010&ConnectedAppealsofVillageMasoodabad

RcferenccCourt was Justifiedin grantingtine aforesaidincreaseof 10% annum while the decisioninper relyingupon Harpat(supra).18.In the light of the fore-goingnarration,I find no infirmityin theimpugnedJudgment in which fair compensationhas been assessed inrespectofthe acquiredland in question.ReferenceCourthas rightlynotclassified the acquired land in question, into 'A' category and 'IB'category, as Land AcquisitionCollectorin the Award in question hasunequivocally stated that no classification of the acquired land isrequiredto be done as the acquiredland is leveled.9.theoftheas well as]Consequentially, appeals appellants/claimantsappealsofUnionofIndiaare dismissed,while leavingthe partiesto beartheir own costs. Registryis directedto remit the compensationamount,li any, depositedby eitherside with the RegistrarGeneralofthis Court,to the concernedReferenceCourt.

March 14, 2012pkb

—UNIL GAUR)JUDGE

U.Ap,xNo,421/20,0&ConnectedAppcisof