Delhi District Court
Sh. Joginder vs Union Of India on 8 October, 2007
IN THE COURT OF MS. POONAM A. BAMBA :
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE : TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
LAC No. 98/05
IN THE MATTER OF :
SH. JOGINDER
S/O SH. RANDHAVA
R/O V. & P.O. POOTH KHURD,
DELHI.
...... PETITIONER
Versus
1. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR,
NORTH-WEST, DELHI.
2. DELHI STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR/CHAIRMAN,
N BOMBAY LIFE BUILDING, CONNAUGHT PLACE
NEW DELHI
........ RESPONDENTS
Award No. 19/02-03
Village POOTH KHURD
Date of Award/ Date
of Announcement of Award 07.09.2002
Notification U/Ss 4 & 17 (1) F.10 (20)/2000/L&B/LA/6640
dt. 07.08.2000
Notification U/s 6 F.10 (20)/2000/L&B/LA/8578
dt. 11.09.2000
Page 1 of 60
Date of Receipt of Reference : 20.07.2005
Date of Arguments : 08.10.2007
Date of Decision: 08.10.2007
REFERENCE PETITION UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE
LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894
JUDGMENT
1.0. A large tract of land ad measuring 1372 bighas 00 biswas 10 biswansi in village Pooth Khurd, Delhi, was acquired by the Govt. for a public purpose namely for shifting of industrial units from the city area of Delhi/New Delhi. Notification u/Ss 4 & 17 (1) of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'LA Act') was issued on 07.08.2000. Declaration u/s 6 LA Act was made on 11.09.2000 ; Thereafter, Award bearing no. 19/02-03 was announced on 07.09.2002. The LAC determined different market price for different Blocks of land viz. Rs. 13.82 lac per acre or Rs. 2,87,916.66 per bigha for block 'A' ; Rs. 12.62 Lac per acre or 2,62,916.66/- per bigha for block 'B'.
1.1. The petitioner being dissatisfied with the market value Page 2 of 60 determined by the LAC, filed the present reference petition u/s.18 of the LA Act, seeking reference to this court. The Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as "LAC") forwarded the same to this court, for adjudication.
2.0. The brief facts as per the reference petition are that the petitioner was in cultivatory possession of 1/3rd share in land comprised in khasra no. 18/3 min (3-04) situated in the revenue estate of Village Pooth Khurd, Delhi. (the said land). The said land was acquired vide abovesaid award no. 19/02-03. 2.1. The petitioner has challenged the award on the grounds that :
i) the said land was acquired by the LAC without any urgency for malafide reasons as LAC wanted to peg down the prices ;
ii) the market value as assessed by LAC is based on the surmises and conjectures and does not represent the true market value of the land prevailing in the area ;Page 3 of 60
iii) the LAC has failed to appreciate that the land of the petitioner is very fertile and productive having sufficient source of irrigation & gives at least three crops in a year ;
iv) the LAC has failed to appreciate that the said land is surrounded by Industrial Area of Bawana (recently developed by DSIDC), G.T. Road, Industrial area of Narela, Residential Area of Rohini, several godowns and factories ;
v) the petitioner's land is quite levelled and is fit for residential/commercial/industrial and buildings purposes ;
vi) the LAC has failed to appreciate that the petitioner's land is adjacent to the village abadi of Pooth Khurd and has great market value ;
vii) the LAC has grossly erred in placing the entire land of petitioner in category 'B' inspite of the fact that the said land is leveled throughout and is of the same kind and quality as that of the land placed by LAC in category 'A' ;
viii) all the civic amenities like roads, bus services, electricity, school, hospitals and telecommunications etc. are available to the petitioner's land ;
ix) the petitioner and his family members are solely Page 4 of 60 dependent on the agricultural income from the said land and after its acquisition, the petitioner and his dependent family members have become jobless and are left with insufficient source of income ;
x) the entire agricultural equipments and paraphernalia such as tractor, cultivator, harrow trolly etc., costing about Rs. 2 lacs have been rendered useless after acquisition of petitioner's entire land ;
xi) the LAC has grossly erred in not awarding compensation for the expenses, loss and injury sustained by the petitioner due to compulsive change in nature and place of business/livelihood ;
xii) the LAC has grossly erred in not awarding the compensation on account of the bonafide damages resulting from diminution of profits of the land between the time of declaration u/s 6 LA Act and the time of the taking possession of the land ;
xiii) the LAC has not awarded any compensation towards the standing crop of Tomato & Lady Finger, on the petitioner's land ;Page 5 of 60
xiv) the LAC has not awarded any compensation towards the 04 Neem trees (15 years old) and 15 Sisham trees (10 years old) standing on the said land ;
xv) the LAC has grossly erred in deduction of tax, while passing the award, as no tax from the amount of compensation and interest thereupon could be deducted ; The petitioner has prayed for the market value of Rs. 5,000 per Sq.Yds along with interest and other statutory benefits.
Petitioner has also claimed Rs. 10,000/- per bigha towards loss and damages for the standing crops, Rs. 50,000/- on account of loss of trees, Rs. 3,00,000/- towards severance charges, Rs. 3,00,000/- for compulsive change in residence and place of business, Rs. 2,00,000/- towards damages to the petitioner's property and agricultural equipments ; Petitioner has also prayed for alternative plot of reasonable size.
3.0 The Union of India (hereinafter referred to as 'UOI') vide its written statement, denied petitioner's averments and has stated that the said land is not surrounded by any developed or Page 6 of 60 undeveloped colony and can be used only for agriculture; there were no standing crops, trees, well, tubewell, structure etc. on the said land at the time of publication of notification u/s. 4 of LA Act etc. 3.1 The respondents i.e. UOI as well as by Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "DSIDC") defended the award and asserted that the compensation granted by the LAC is adequate, just and legal. They have contended that the LAC, while making the award, had taken into consideration the market value of the land on the basis of all the documents which were made available and produced before him. He had also taken into consideration the area of the land and other amenities/facilities available thereon, while assessing the compensation.
4.0 On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any enhancement in the compensation Page 7 of 60 amount ? If so, to what extent ?
2. Relief.
5.0 In support of his claim, the petitioner himself appeared in the witness-box as PW-1 and also examined PW-2 Sh. S.R. Kataria, the LAC, who passed the award in question, PW-3 Sh. Manoj Kumar, LDC, L&DO Department, PW-4 Sh. Shyambir Patwari, PW-5 Sh. Azad Singh, Office Kanoongo, PW-6 Sh. Manjit Singh Patwari and PW-7 Sh. A.K. Verma, Tehsildar (Narela).
Petitioner also tendered in evidence, copies of applications dt. 14.08.2006 under The Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), seeking information from SDM, Narela regarding removing/lifting of soil/earth from the said land along with copies of fee receipts, Ex. PW-7/1 (colly) and Ex. PW-7/2 (colly), respectively. 5.1. The respondents placed reliance upon the award in question Ex. R-1 and a sale deed dt. 4.12.2001 of a piece of land of village Narela, Ex. R-2.
6.0. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have considered the record carefully. My issue-wise findings are given Page 8 of 60 hereinafter.
7.0. FINDINGS ON ISSUE NO. 1 :-
It is a well known fact that the compensation payable for land acquired by the Government, cannot be ascertained with mathematical accuracy. The price of such land can be assessed taking into account inter alia (1) the opinion of valuators or experts ;
(2) the price paid within a reasonable time in a bona fide transaction of purchase of the acquired land or the lands adjacent to the acquired land and possessing similar advantages ; and (3) a number of year's purchase of the actual or immediate prospective profits from the acquired land. The other factors relevant for this purpose are the land's nature, its location, potential including surrounding developed area etc. Valuation on the basis of Agricultural Yield 7.1. The petitioner has contended that his land was leveled, fertile, had sufficient source of irrigation and was giving at least three Page 9 of 60 crops in a year ; that LAC without appreciating the same, determined a low market value ; that LAC has not awarded any compensation towards the crop of tomatoes and lady-finger which was standing on the said land at the time of acquisition.
The respondents have stated that the LAC has awarded adequate compensation taking into account the nature of the said land. UOI has further stated that there was no standing crop, trees etc., on the said land at the time of publication of notification u/s 4 LA Act.
7.1.1. The petitioner himself has appeared in the witness-box as PW-1. Petitioner in his examination-in-chief filed by way of affidavit has reiterated his above-said averments made in the petition. Petitioner has stated that he was growing three to four crops in a year viz. rice, wheat and vegetables, like tomatoes & lady finger and was earning a net income of Rs. 2 to 3 lac p.a. from the said land after deduction of the expenses incurred towards fertilizers, seeds, diesel and transportation etc. The petitioner in his cross-examination, has stated that he was growing many crops like wheat, paddy, jawar and vegetables Page 10 of 60 etc. and was earning around 2 lacs p.a. by selling the crops. Petitioner further stated that he was selling part of his produce in Narela Mandi to Adhati and in Azadpur Mandi. The petitioner admitted that he was not maintaining any record of sale or receipt of income from sale of such crops and he has not filed any document with respect to the produce and the income therefrom.
Petitioner has placed on record khasra girdawaries for the years 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2001-02, same are Ex. PW-5/1 to PW-5/6 respectively. Petitioner also summoned PW-5 Sh. Azad Singh, Office Kanoongo, North-West alongwith the record of said khasra girdawaries.
Perusal of the above said khasra girdawaries reveal that name of petitioner does not appear in column 4. It is clarified by the petitioner/witness that the land of village Pooth Khurd was under
consolidation. The khasra number 18/3 (3-04) (1/3 share) as mentioned in LAC's statement u/s 19 LA Act, has been allotted to petitioner in consolidation but the khasra girdawaris mention the name of the previous owners of the said khasra/the said land.
It is seen from the khasra girdawaris that no crop is shown Page 11 of 60 on the said land in the year 1994-98 ; Further, one crop of wheat only is reflected in the years 1999-2000 and 2001-02 on the said land. Thus, the petitioner has failed to prove that he was getting three crops in a year from the said land.
The above record of khasra girdawaries belies the petitioner's claim that he was growing three to four crops in a year. It is also significant to note that the petitioner has not stated anything in his petition, about the quantum of produce, the rate of crops, his earnings from the agriculture produce from the said land. For the first time in his examination in chief, the petitioner stated that he was able to earn Rs. 2 to 3 lacs per annum from the sale of produce in the market ; the petitioner has not stated anything with respect to the quantum of produce, even in his examination-in-chief. It is further noted that the petitioner in his examination-in-chief, stated that he was earning 2 to 3 lacs per annum from the said land, whereas in his cross-examination, the petitioner stated that he was earning around Rs. 2 lacs per annum. Further, the petitioner has failed to produce any documentary evidence as to the quantum of produce and income therefrom. Petitioner has stated that he was Page 12 of 60 not maintaining any record of sale of produce in the market.
Thus, except for his own varied statements, no other evidence has been placed on record by the petitioner with respect to quantum of produce and his income therefrom.
In view of the above evidence, I find that the petitioner has failed to substantiate his averment that he was earning Rs.2 to 3 lacs per annum from the said land.
The petitioner's counsel has argued that the petitioner's testimony cannot be brushed aside merely because he has not maintained any record of sale of produce. The petitioner's counsel in this regard has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Kondamuri Anasuyamma Vs. Distt. Judge, W.G. Distt at Eluru and others, AIR 1991 Andhra Pradesh 47. The Hon'ble High Court in para 6 of their judgment, observed that :-
" We should not forget that we are dealing with rustic persons in this case. We cannot expect that a person like landlady in this case will keep the M.O, coupon with her anticipating its necessity in future. Generally nobody will keep the M.O. coupon with Page 13 of 60 them unless they anticipate its necessity in future. Therefore, the non-production of the M.O., coupon by the land-lady in this case cannot be taken to draw an adverse inference. ..................."
7.1.2. The above judgment is of no assistance to the petitioner, in view of the evidence on record. Because, even if, the petitioner is believed that he was growing three to four crops in a years and was selling the surplus yield in the market and was not keeping any record of produce and sale, I find that the petitioner has failed to mention anything about the quantum of agricultural produce from the said land, its rate per kg. etc. Further, in his examination-in-chief also, petitioner has only mentioned about his earnings of Rs. 2 to 3 lacs per annum from the said land. He has not produced any other evidence in support. Thus, the petitioner's claim, that he should be granted compensation of minimum Rs. 20 lacs per bigha taking into account the agricultural yield/net income of Rs. one lac per bigha multiplied by 20 years, for which he would have cultivated the said land, cannot be accepted.
For the above reasons, the judgment of Hon'ble High Page 14 of 60 Court in Sobha Ram Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2002 VI AD (Delhi) 87, relied upon by the petitioner is absolutely of no assistance to the petitioner. More so, in view of the fact that in Sobha Ram's case on one hand, the petitioner had given rough estimate of the yield per bigha of the crops and also the rate of crop and on the other hand, the LAC had not disclosed in the Award any basis for fixation of market price. In that situation, the Hon'ble High Court had held that :-
"............ In view of this scanty evidence we will have to apply the thumb rule of determining the fair market value and the estimated income can be worked out even with reference to the statement of P.W. 6. He has given rough estimate of the yield per bigha of wheat and rice and also the rates of grains as in the year 1960 to which there is no rebuttal..........."
In the instant case, the petitioner has failed to mention anything about the quantum of produce/yield and the rate, at which he was selling the agricultural produce. Further, in the instant case, the LAC has spelt out the basis on which he has determined the market value viz. the Govt. policy dated 11.09.2001. Page 15 of 60
The petitioner's counsel has also placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in State of Gujrat Vs. Rama Rana, 1997 I AD S.C. 517, stating that even Sarpanch's testimony as to yield from the acquired land was accepted by the court. The said judgment also is of no help to the petitioner, in view of the distinct facts of this case. As mentioned above, in the instant case, the petitioner has not stated anything about yield and the rate at which the crops were being sold by him.
7.1.3. The petitioner has also contended that he has not been given any compensation for crop, which was standing on the said land at the time of acquisition . I have perused the award carefully. It is observed that at page no. 17 of the Award under the heading "CROPS", LAC has mentioned that :-
"At the time of taking over possession of land on 4.10.2000, no crop was standing on the vacant land and physical possession was taken/handed over to the requisitioning department. Hence, the crop has not been assessed for the purpose of compensation."Page 16 of 60
In view of the above evidence and the observations made by LAC in the award, the only conclusion which can be drawn is that no crop was standing on the said land at the time of taking over of the possession. In view of the same, I find that the petitioner has failed to prove his claim for compensation towards crop which was standing on the said land.
Is Categorization of Land Justified :
7.2. The petitioner has further contended that his land was levelled and was of the same quality as that of the land, which has been placed in category 'A'. But LAC wrongly placed his entire land in category 'B'. The respondents have denied the same and have submitted that the LAC was well within his right to place depressed land in category 'B', in view of the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ludhiana Improvement Trust Vs. Brijeshwar Singh Chhal & Anr. (1996) 9 SCC 188 and Executive Director Vs. Sharad Chandra Bisoi & Anr. (2006) 6 SCC 326. Therefore, LAC has rightly placed the said land in category 'B' as the earth was Page 17 of 60 being dug out from the said land and it had 2/3 feet deep gadhas.
It is hardly a matter of contest that the land can be categorised on the basis of its quality etc., as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ludhiana Improvement Trust and Sharad Chandra Bisoi's cases (supra). What needs to be examined is, whether the principle enunciated in the above said cases can be applied to the instant case.
The petitioner has argued that no earth/soil was being removed by the petitioner from the said land ; that the earth/soil from the agricultural land, cannot be removed without obtaining permission from revenue authorities ; that neither he nor his forefathers ever sought any permission for removing earth from the said land ; that whenever earth/soil is removed from the agricultural land, the said fact of removal of soil is recorded by the revenue authorities in their record, like khasra girdawari ; that action is also initiated against the bhumidhars/such persons for removing earth without permission ; that no such action was ever initiated against the petitioner or his forefathers.
The petitioner has further stated that he had even made Page 18 of 60 an application under RTI Act to the revenue authorities to inform whether any permission was ever sought for removing earth from the said land, vide applications and receipts issued towards the fee paid ; that vide Ex. PW-7/1 and Ex. PW-7/2 it is confirmed that no such permission was sought.
7.2.1. It is seen that the petitioner's application under RTI Act, was responded to by the authorities vide Ex. PW-7/2 ; vide said reply, it was conveyed to petitioner that no permission in the recent past was granted to the owner/bhumidar of the said land to lift the soil. It is further noted that the concerned authority expressed its inability to produce the said information for the period 1954 to 2000.
Not going any further into the above documents with regard to the permission if any, was sought by the petitioner for removing earth and whether action if any, was taken against the petitioner for removing the earth without permission. Suffice it to mention that merely because that no permission was sought by petitioner/his forefathers and mere fact that no action was taken against the petitioner/his forefathers, for removal of earth/top soil, without permission, does not in any manner establish that no earth Page 19 of 60 was actually removed from the said land, by the petitioner. 7.2.2. The petitioner has further pleaded that the LAC has placed the said land in category 'B' without physical verification of the said land.
I have perused the award in question. It is seen from the award that the land measuring 602 bigha 01 biswa and 10 biswansi has been placed in category 'B' by LAC. It is further seen that petitioner's entire land as comprised in khasra number 18/3 (3-04) is placed in category 'B'. It is further observed that the LAC at page 13 of the award has mentioned that as the land located on the boundary of the village Pooth Khurd had gadhas upto three feet, from which the earth has been taken out for making bricks, the said portion of the land is placed in category 'B'. The relevant portion of the award is reproduced hereunder :-
"The land under acquisition is agricultural land and is being used for agriculture. However, some land located on the boundary of village Pooth Khurd, there are "GADHAS" upto 3 feet from which earth has been taken out for making bricks. Hence, Page 20 of 60 for the purpose of assessing the market value, land can fairly be divided into two blocks. One block will consist of level land under cultivation total measuring 769 bigha and 19 biswas is categorised as Block "A" and second block consisting of "GADHAS" measuring 602 bigha 01 biswas and 10 biswansi is categorised as block "B".
Besides what is reproduced above, there is no other discussion about categorization of land except at page 17 of the award ; that also is only with respect to deduction of Rs. 1,20,000/- on account of three feet gadhas stated to have been found on 'B' category land.
It is not clear from the award that on what basis the LAC recorded that there were 3 feet deep gadhas on the land, which was kept in category 'B'. It is an admitted fact that survey of the acquired land is conducted at the time of acquisition of the land ; every detail about the land is expected to be recorded in the survey report ; this report is the very foundation on the basis of which the LAC arrives at the conclusion about the user/status of land at the time of acquisition. But, there is no reference of any such report or other material in the award, which formed the basis of LAC's findings about 3 feet gadhas Page 21 of 60 on the part of the acquired land.
In this regard with the consent of respondents, the petitioner was allowed to refer to the testimony of Sh. S.R. Kataria, LAC, who had passed the award in question and the documents filed by him.
It is noted that concerned LAC in his testimony has stated that survey of the land was conducted by the Field Staff ; that as per survey report, there were gadhas in the portion of the acquired land ; that gadhas were because of removal of fertile top soil ; such depressed land was kept in category 'B' ; that the remaining land which was levelled was kept in category 'A'. He has further stated that as there were gadhas in part of the acquired land, uniform compensation was not awarded for the entire land.
LAC, in his cross-examination while denying that no physical survey of the said land, was carried out, admitted that the survey of the land was not conducted by him personally ; that it was conducted by the Field Staff, prior to his joining as LAC. He has also stated that on the basis of the Field Staff's report about the gadhas in portion of the land, the same was kept in category 'B. He further stated that while passing any award Page 22 of 60 besides the report of the Field Staff, he used to refer to the revenue record like khasra girdawari, Form P-5 etc. and whether any crops were being cultivated on the said land, to ascertain the quality of the land. LAC denied that he has categorized the land without even referring to the revenue record. LAC placed on record a copy of a report Ex. PW-2/3.
7.2.3. The petitioner's counsel has argued that so called survey report Ex. PW-2/3 is a fabricated report ; that actually no survey was ever carried out ; that this fact is evident from the contradictions in LAC's statement and the official record ; that the LAC in his cross- examination has stated that the survey was conducted by the Field Staff/patwari, whereas LAC in his office note dated 31.08.2002 (which is Ex. PW-2/2), vide which the draft award was put up for approval of the Divisional Commissioner, has mentioned in para 4, that the survey was conducted by Patwari and kanoongo ; that the alleged survey report (Ex. PW-2/3) placed on record is signed only by Patwari Bijender Singh and does not bear signatures of kanoongo.
I have perused Ex. PW-2/3. This document is titled as "FAHRIST SUCHI KHADDE JAAT (KHUDAAN), Village Pooth Page 23 of 60 Khurd" and contains the list of khasra numbers and area thereof. This list does not mention anything about any physical verification/survey of the acquired land or who conducted the survey, if any ; there is not even a mention as to how these gadhas were noted and by whom ; From the plain reading of Ex. PW-2/3, it is clear that it is not a survey report ; it is simply a list of khasra numbers with khadhas ; It is also noted that this list does not even mention anything about the depth of the khadhas found on different khasra numbers.
I have also perused LAC's note dt. 31.08.2002, referred to by the petitioner's counsel, which is Ex. PW-2/2. The relevant portion of the said note reads as under :-
"Here it is pertinent to mention that some land located on the boundary of village Pooth Khurd there are GADHAS upto 3 feet from which earth have been removed for making bricks. As per the survey report of Patwari, Kanoongo land measuring 602 bigha 01 biswa and 10 biswansi where GADHAS upto 3 feet have been removed/taken."Page 24 of 60
From the above, it is clear that in his above note dt. 31.08.2002 (Ex. PW-2/2), LAC mentioned about some survey report of patwari and kanoongo. Whereas the so called survey report/list of 'B' category khasra numbers (Ex. PW-2/3) placed on record bears signatures of Patwari Bijender Singh only.
LAC, in his cross-examination stated that it must be typographical error.
It is also significant to note that Ex. PW-2/3, the above said list of khasra numbers placed in category 'B', has been prepared/signed by the patwari Bijender Singh on 17.10.2000 ; date of report was also not very legible, but the same was clarified to be 17.10.2000, by LAC and subsequently by Patwari Shyambir. That is, this report/list was prepared after taking over of possession of the land.
The respondent/LAC has admitted that the survey of the land to determine the quality of the land and to see the crops/trees/structure, if any, standing on the land, is conducted prior to taking over the possession of the land. As mentioned at page 19 of the award under the head "POSSESSION", the possession of the acquired land was taken over and handed over to the Page 25 of 60 requisitioning department (DSIDC) on 4.10.2000. Thus, the survey of the said land if any, must/should have been conducted prior to 4.10.2000. Whereas, the so called survey report (Ex. PW- 2/3) produced by the LAC is dated 17.10.2000. No other survey report has been produced by the respondent. The respondent has failed to explain as how this so called "survey report" is subsequent to (on 17.10.2000) taking over of possession of the acquired land.
It would also be pertinent to mention here that PW-4 Patwari Shyambir appeared in the witness-box along with Award file. Patwari in his testimony stated that :-
".......... The record file of award no. 19/2002-2003, award in question contains proceedings sheet, award, possession report dated 4.10.2000, letter of DSIDC bearing DSIDC/EE(CD)-
II/LA/Payment/172(I)/2000/393 dated 12.11.2002 with respect to balance amount of land - of village Sanoth, Naya Bans (urf Iradat Nagar), Pooth Khurd, Holambi Khurd, and Bawana ......... report dated 17.10.2000 as to the status of the land in respect of lands falling in khasra numbers, report dated 17.10.2000 containing list of trees, wells and Boring , tube wells........ The award file brought by me is the only file pertaining to the award in question. No other documents pertaining to the Page 26 of 60 award in question are there ."
Patwari in his cross-examination stated that :-
"There is no joint survey report of the land in question in this file. This file does not contain revenue record of the acquired land. This file does not contain any details of quality of land. This is only the (only) award file."
Petitioner's counsel has further argued that the fact that the so called survey report is a fabricated document, is also supported by the fact that Patwari Sh. Bijender Singh has never been posted in the field ; that he suffers from physical handicap in his leg and could not have surveyed the acquired land. Petitioner's counsel placed on record and confronted the LAC with the certified copy of statement of said Patwari Sh. Bijender Singh recorded on 16.08.2004, in another case bearing LAC no. 35/2001, titled as Chajju Ram Vs. Union of India, wherein Sh. Bijender Singh stated before the Ld. Predecessor Court that :-
"....... I had never been patwari in any area i.e. actual Field. My First Posting was in LA Palam, South Branch in the year 1988. I have never been Page 27 of 60 posted in the field, but was always posted in LA Branch only...."
Although, the LAC in his cross-examination denied that patwari Bijender was never posted in field and that he was not capable of conducting survey on account of physical handicap, but the burden lay heavy on the respondent to demonstrate that the acquired land was categorised only after proper survey, in view of the above evidence, viz. no mention of mode of enquiry to determine quality of land in award ; no survey report being available on Award File maintained in LAC Office ; the so called "survey report" being no report but only a list of khasra numbers placed in category 'B' ; said list also being dated 17.10.2000 i.e. subsequent to date of taking over of possession.
It is worthwhile to mention here that for the reasons best known to them, the respondent chose not to summon the said patwari Sh. Bijender Singh, who as per them, had conducted the physical survey, the best evidence.
It would also not be out of place to mention here that even after conclusion of evidence, subsequently during the proceedings/arguments, the UOI was directed to place on record the Page 28 of 60 survey report, if available with them. In response to the same, UOI filed copy of "Karyawahi Sanyukt Sarvekshan" (Joint Survey Report) dt. 2.6.2000. I have perused the said report dated 02.06.2000. It is seen that this report actually is a joint survey of land of villages Bawana, Holambi Khurd, Holambi Kalan, Sanoth, Naya Bans, Iradat Nagar-Khera Khurd, Pooth Khurd etc., conducted by patwari, Kanoongo, Naib Tehsildar, Junior Engineer, Asstt. Executive Engineer, Engineer etc. on receipt of requisition of approx. 800 acre of land from DSIDC. This survey was conducted between 30.05.2000 to 02.06.2000. Alongwith this survey report are annexed the details of land of the above-said villages. The perusal of this survey report, reveals that it is the report pertaining to the joint survey conducted on receipt of requisition from beneficiary department, to spot the land for acquisition ; it was conducted prior to issuance of notification u/s 4 LA Act for acquisition of land in the abovesaid villages. This is not the report pertaining to the survey of land in village Pooth Khurd acquired vide award in question, to ascertain the quality of the land to be acquired.
Thus, the respondent chose neither to place on record the survey report, vide which gadhas upto 3 feet on 'B' category land Page 29 of 60 were reported nor did it examine the concerned patwari Bijender Singh, who as per the respondent had carried out the survey of the land, for the reasons best known to the respondent.
It would be relevant to refer here to the observation made by the Hon'ble High Court while setting aside the categorization, in somewhat similar circumstances, in its judgment dated 11.05.2006 in LA Appeal no. 866/2005, titled as Mahender Singh Vs. UOI and others. The Hon'ble High Court observed as under :-
"10. .................
...... The land which is being used for Bhatta purpose is having "Gadhas" upto three feet from which earth has been taken out for making bricks. This also includes "Bhatta Grund". Hence, for the purpose of assessing the market value, land can fairly be divided into two blocks.
11. The above findings of the Collector are based on what evidence or record is not reflected in the entire award. It cannot be disputed that at the time of the acquisition of the land, survey of the acquired land is conducted wherein every details in relation to the acquired land are expected to the noticed. This report is the very foundation on the basis of Page 30 of 60 which any authority or court can come to the conclusion as to what was the user/state of the land at the time of acquisition. Unfortunately, in the present case, neither such a report appears to have been made available to the Collector nor was it produced before the Reference Cout despite a specific plea being led by the claimants in this regard. There are findings of fact and must be recorded on the basis of some oral or documentary evidence which is maintained in the normal course of business of Department of the State. In the event, there is no documentary or oral evidence to support such a finding it would certainly call for judicial correction. The Collector in the entire award does not even notice that he had the occasion to visit the acquired land or any part thereof during the acquisition proceedings. Thus, we have to examine this finding of fact on the basis of the evidence produced before the Reference Court. ............. The possession thereof was taken vide kabza karwai (possession report) dated 18.12.1996 which was signed by as many as 15 persons from different Departments. .............. In this possession report, there is no reference to brick kilns, brick gadhas or gadhas of the level of 3 feet or more. In the copy of the khasra girdawaris for the year Page 31 of 60 1996-97, 1997-98 in relation to the part of the land, there is no indication again that there was any brick kiln on the acquired land or part thereof.
12. ..........
13. PW R-7, Ramesh Kumar Patwari, in his examination-in-chief stated as under :-
"In the survey, it is seen as to how much land the claimant had and how much trees are standing thereon. Tube well, kotha, boundaries are verified. Whether the land is depressed (at low level) or levelled one is also verified........."
15. .............
16. ............
17. Above is the documentary and oral evidence led by the claimants before the Reference Court. On the other hand, for the reasons best known to them, the respondents chose to withhold from the Reference Court all the relevant evidence. They opted not to examine any witness or produce any documents before the Reference Court. The survey report which ought to have been prepared prior to the acquisition was not produced either before the Reference Court or even before this Court. These are the documents which are in power and possession of the respondents and are maintained by them Page 32 of 60 during the normal course of their business in completing the acquisition proceedings. In the event a party withholds the best evidence in its power and possession, the court would normally draw adverse inference against the party withholding the evidence. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents argued that the onus was on the claimants and it was not obligatory on the part of the respondents to produce any evidence. This argument is based on misconception of law and fact. Certainly the claimants approached the court for enhancement of compensation awarded to them by the Collector and the primary onus was upon the claimants. But, at the same time, Union of India supports the award of the Collector and there is an implied onus upon them to show to the satisfaction of the Reference Court that the award should be affirmed by the Court on facts as proved before the Collector and the law settled by the Court. The concept of onus shifts from one party to the other keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. It cannot be stated as an absolute proposition of law that the respondents particularly the Union of India had no onus to discharge and is not expected to lead any evidence before the Reference Court. The Page 33 of 60 general and broad principle of evidence is that a party which affirms has the onus probandi.
Another test is which party would fail if no evidence was led on a factual averment. .......... It was the argument of the Union of India that there was pits and gadhas in the lands and certain persons were running the brick kilns on the acquired lands. According to them this fact was correctly noticed in the award of the Collector............... Thus, as far as the respondents are concerned, their averments that part of the acquired land in the revenue estate of village Bawana was of inferior quality is a plea supported by no evidence and the Collector made no attempt to justify his findings with reference to any records maintained by the Acquisition Department itself in normal course of its business.
18 .........
19 .........
20. Categorisation of land is an exception to the general rule of awarding uniform compensation for the acquired lands. This has to be proved, as a matter of fact, and it would be impermissible to infer such factual presumptions, particularly when the evidence led by the claimants stares the respondent in face. .................. and the Collector Page 34 of 60 in his wisdom neither visited the site nor based his findings on any revenue records i.e. khasra girdhwari, survey repots, jamabandi etc. ................... the findings of the Collector in regard to categorisation, is a finding which cannot be sustained by this court.
In view of the above evidence, the findings of LAC as to placement of petitioner's entire land in category 'B' cannot be sustained.
7.3. Valuation on the basis of Sale Deeds In the award, the LAC has observed that interested persons though generally claimed exorbitant prices of their land but have not filed any documentary evidence in support of their claim. Even before this court, the petitioner has failed to place on record any sale deed of this village or of any other neighbouring village.
On the other hand, the UOI has produced a copy of a sale deed executed on 04.12.2001 by one Sh. Sumer Singh son of Sh. Sahi Ram with respect to 8 bighas 10-1/2 biswas of land, situated in the revenue estate of village Narela, for a sum of Rs. 13,60,000/-. Page 35 of 60 (Ex. R-2) The rate of land as per this sale deed comes to around Rs. 1,59,531/- per bigha i.e. less than the compensation already awarded by the LAC @ Rs. 2,87,916.66/- per bigha for 'A' category land and Rs. 2,62,916.66/- per bigha for 'B' category land. This sale deed is of no relevance in the instant case, in view of the provisions of Section 25 LA Act which reads as under :-
"25. Amount of compensation awarded by court not to be lower than the amount awarded by the Collector :- The amount of compensation awarded by the court shall not be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under section 11."
It would also be pertinent to mention here that the Hon'ble High Court in its judgment dated 27.04.2006 in Gajraj Singh Vs. UOI, [2006 VI AD (Delhi) 13], had observed with respect to the sale deed of a lessor amount relied upon by the UOI in that case as under :-
"The sale deeds.............. are inconsequential inasmuch as the Collector had already awarded compensation higher than the rates indicated in those sale deeds. The Union of Page 36 of 60 India is not aggrieved and in any case as per provisions of Section 25, the Reference Court or this Court would have no jurisdiction to reduce the amount awarded by the Collector to the claimants in land acquisition proceedings. Thus, no detailed discussion on this issue is called for."
Thus, in view of Section 25 LA Act and the settled position of law, the sale deed Ex. R-2 relied upon by the respondent is of no assistance, to arrive at market value of the acquired land, on that basis.
7.4. Valuation on the basis of Location, Potential and Comparability of the Acquired Land with Surrounding Land :-
7.4.1. The petitioner has contended that LAC has failed to appreciate the true potential of land ; that LAC has failed to consider that all the amenities like electricity, water, tele-communications etc. are available to the petitioner's land ; that it is surrounded by industrial area of Bawana and Narela and is in vicinity of residential colony of Rohini ; that the petitioner's land had potential for usage for Page 37 of 60 residential/commercial purposes.
The respondents have denied these averments. UOI has stated that the said land is not surrounded by any developed or undeveloped colony and was basically an agricultural land and cannot be compared with the industrial land and land of developed colonies. It is further stated that the petitioner even failed to file any claim/objections and any documents in support, before LAC.
The petitioner though reiterated averments in examination-in-chief filed by way of affidavit and stood by testimony in his cross-examination, as mentioned above.
The petitioner however summoned PW-6 Sh. Manjit Singh, Patwari, who is working as patwari of village Pooth Khurd besides other villages, since 2005. Patwari Manjit Singh proved shijra of village Pooth Khurd. PW-6 in his testimony stated that :-
"Villages Barwala, Bawana, Karala, Khera Khurd are adjoining the village Pooth Khurd ; Haryana- Delhi canal passes by the boundaries of villages Bawana and Khera Khurd. This canal was also supplying water to village Pooth Khurd earlier. I cannot say what is the distance between G.T. Road/Bawana Road and village Pooth Khurd.Page 38 of 60
Kharkoda road passes through the village Pooth Khurd ; it is coming from Village Barwala and gone to village Bawana and to Haryana.
Village Bawana falls in West of village Pooth Khurd. ..... Residential area of village Pooth Khurd is at a distance of about 4 kilas from the boundary of village Bawana.
Khasra no. 30/2, 3, 4 is at a distance of about one acre from residential area/extended abadi of village Pooth Khurd..."
PW-6 in his cross-examination has stated that he cannot say whether land of village Bawana is costlier than that of land of village Pooth Khurd or whether land quality of village Pooth Khurd is similar to that of village Daryaopur Kalan. PW-6 however, admitted that there are two nahars, kachi as well as pucci, which supply water to village Pooth Khurd.
From the testimony of patwari Manjit Singh (PW-6), it is clear that village Pooth Khurd is situated adjoining villages Bawana, Khera Khurd etc. Respondent has not disputed that village Bawana is at a distance of about 5 to 6 km from village Pooth Khurd ; that Village Khera Khurd is at a distance of about 7 km from village Page 39 of 60 Pooth Khurd. It is also clear from the above that the village Pooth Khurd has the accessibility by metalled road.
The petitioner has also placed reliance upon the award no. 1/97-98 of village Bawana and award no. 3/02-03 of village Khera Khurd and has contended that it is clear from these awards that the large tract of land of neighbouring villages of Bawana and Khera Khurd, were already acquired for industrial purposes ; that the same shows that the development in the vicinity of village Pooth Khurd had been going on since 1998 i.e. for about last 10 years.
It is not disputed that the development has been going on in villages Bawana and Khera Khurd. Same also reflects on the potential of the land of village Pooth Khurd. But at the same time, it needs to be examined whether the petitioner has led any evidence to show that the petitioner's land, had the potential of fetching a price of not less than Rs. 5,000/- per sq. yds., if sold in open market.
As already noted above, no sale deed has been produced by the petitioner ; sale deed produced by UOI is inconsequential. 7.4.2. Petitioner however, has produced a letter dt. 18.01.1993 of allotment, of alternative plot measuring 209 sq. mtrs., at the Page 40 of 60 provisional rate of Rs. 1650/- per sq. mtrs. in Narela Residential Scheme on Perpetual Lease to one Sh. Attar Singh Khatri under the scheme of large scale acquisition & development and disposal of land in Delhi and a letter dated 23.10.2000 of allotment of plot measuring 250 sq. mtrs. at Bawana Industrial Complex to M/s Rathore Enterprises at the rate of 4200/- per sq. mtrs.
UOI has strongly contested that these documents cannot be looked into at all ; that these plots are developed pieces of land, prices of which include the development charges and other expenses ; thus offer prices of these plots are not comparable with petitioner's land, which was purely agricultural in nature.
I have carefully considered the above-said letters of offer/allotments. The plots of land allotted vide said letters are the plots situated in urban area falling in Narela Residential Scheme/Bawana Industrial complex. The said land is developed land. It is undisputed that the land for Narela Township actually was acquired in 1963 and was developed over a period of more than 30 years.
It would be pertinent to mention here that the Hon'ble Page 41 of 60 Supreme Court in Bhim Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Another, 2003 (10) SCC 529 held that no comparison can be made between undeveloped agricultural land and developed land. The observations of Hon'ble Supreme Cout in para 10 of the judgement are reproduced below :-
"It was next submitted that the claimants were entitled to higher compensation as the respondents had in 1989 auctioned plots of land at the rate of Rs.1725 to Rs.2510 per square yard. In our view this submission merely needs to be stated to be rejected. What price is fetched after full development cannot be the basis for fixing compensation in respect of land which was agricultural."
Reference in this regard can also be made to the dictum of the Hon'ble High Court in American Universal Electric (India) Ltd. Vs. UOI 2001 II AD (Delhi) 867, wherein it was held that that there could hardly be any comparison between an undeveloped agricultural land, though intended to be used for residential purpose and that of a developed one. The Hon'ble High Court Page 42 of 60 observed as under :-
"Appellant's claim that his land deserved as much as that of Multan Nagar Colony land has been rightly rejected. Firstly there could be hardly any comparison between the two because Appellants' land was an undeveloped agricultural land, though intended to be used for residential purpose and that of Multan Nagar Colony was a developed one. There is nothing on record to show that the two were of similar character, nature and situation enjoying identical amenities and advantages. It is a trite that onus was on the claimant to establish by material evidence that these lands enjoyed the requisite similarity......."
In view of the settled position of law, the rates of such developed plots of land cannot be compared with admittedly agricultural land of the petitioner ; Rates of these plots, therefore, are not of much relevance for arriving at the market value of petitioner's agricultural land.
Page 43 of 60
Further, it may also be mentioned that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Deputy Collector & Another Vs. Kurra Sambasiva Rao & Others, AIR 1997 SC 2625, has held that :-
" What is fair and reasonable and adequate market value is always a question of fact depending on the evidence adduced, circumstantial evidence and probabilities arising in each case. The guiding star or the acid test would be whether a hypothetical willing vendor would offer the land and a willing purchaser in normal human conduct would be willing to buy as a prudent man in normal market condition prevailing in the open market in the locality in which the acquired lands are situated as on the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act ;but not an anxious buyer dealing at arm's length with throw away price, nor facade of sale or fictitious sales brought about in quick succession or otherwise to inflate the market value. The judge should sit in the arm chair of the said willing buyer and seek an answer to the question whether in the given set of circumstances as a prudent buyer he would offer the same market value which the court proposed to fix for the acquired lands in the available market conditions."Page 44 of 60
In view of the observations made above, It is apparent that no willing buyer would have purchased the agricultural land of the petitioner at the rate at which DSIDC & DDA were selling their industrial/residential plots, after fully developing the same.
It would not be out of place to mention here that the documents similar to above letters of offer/allotment of plots were also relied upon by the claimants in another matter pertaining to village Holambi Kalan, in which the land was acquired vide award no. 22/97-98. After examining the said documents, the Hon'ble High Court in Gajraj Singh's case (supra) had observed that :-
"........... The claimants have heavily relied upon Ex. PW-1/A which is a letter of allotment issued by the DSIDC for allotting the industrial sheds to Mr. Ballu Ram @ Rs. 650/- per sq. m., ......... and lastly on Ex. PW3/A which is a letter of demand dated 18.1.93 in respect of plot no. 19, Pocket 8, Sector B4 measuring about 209 sq. m. in Narela Industrial scheme @ Rs.
1650.65/- per sq. m. in the name of Mr. Attar Singh Khatri. As far as Ex. P4 and Ex. PW3/A Page 45 of 60 are concerned, they cannot be termed as comparable or even referable instances. The reason for the same is that Ex. P4 does not relate to the rates of agricultural lands or even the lands which are agricultural but have been partially developed.
As far as Ex. PW1/A is concerned, this document may not fall as a determinative evidence for the purpose of computing the fair market value of the acquired land at the relevant time but certainly is a material piece of evidence which gives an idea not only with regard to the value of the land but as well as to the location and potential of the land. ................"
In view of above, the rates of plots in Narela Residential Scheme and Bawana Industrial Area, can not be taken to be determinative of land price in the instant case. At best, these documents indicate the prices of the developed land in the villages Bawana & Narela situated at a distance of about 6-7 km approx, and 10 km approx, respectively and reflects the potentiality of land of village Pooth Khurd.
Page 46 of 60 7.4.3. The petitioner's counsel has argued that the market value of petitioner's land can be arrived at after deducting development charges from the price of the above said plots ; that even if, 50% of the plot price is taken to be development charges, still the minimum price of the petitioner's land even by most conservative estimate would come to Rs. 5 lacs per bigha. In this regard, the petitioner relied upon the testimony of Sh. H.C. Puri (as recorded in connected case LAC no. 87/05-Jai Singh-copy placed in this file), Superintendent Engineer, Bawana Site Office, Delhi-Auchandi Road, Delhi with respect to the expenditure incurred on entire agricultural land of village Bawana (acquired through different awards) for its development, for relocation of industries. The witness filed the details of expenditure incurred on total area of land. Sh. H.C. Puri, in his testimony stated that :-
" ............ The total land, which was acquired, measured 1903 acre. The total expenditure incurred is Rs. 85,241.12 Lacs of the said land as on 31.3.2007. The above expenditure includes cost of land, construction of roads, electricity, sewer, water supply storm-water drain, underground water-tanks, horticultural works, CETP (Common Effluent Treatment Plant) and other Page 47 of 60 infrastructural development. The attested true copy of the details of expenditure and total area of land is Ex. PW-4/1.
The plots cut out of acquired land have already been allotted............"
Sh. H.C. Puri, in his cross-examination, has admitted that :-
"It is correct that before taking up any project, a Project Report is prepared by the consultants. As per the Project Report, the approx. cost of project is Rs. 1300 crore. After acquisition, the land was developed before allocation of plots. The development of the land was carried out in phases and allotment of plots was also done accordingly in phases."
The petitioner's counsel has stated that even if the estimated cost of the project is considered, the expenditure/ expenses which would be required to be incurred on 1 bigha of land in above project, would be as under :-
Total Area of land : 1903 Acre (9134 bighas 4 biswas) Total Project Cost : Rs. 13000000000 Page 48 of 60 Cost of development : Rs. 13000000000 --:-- 9134.4 (Per bigha) = 14,23,190.00/-
(Rs. 14,23,190.00/- is total projected expenditure in developing one bigha land.) Thus by selling a plot of 250 sq. mtrs. in Bawana Industrial Complex @ Rs. 4200/- per sq. mtrs., the Government shall be earning the following income :-
Price of 1 sqm : Rs. 4200/- Price of 1 bigha : Rs. 4200 x 836 = Rs. 35,11200/- (1 Bigha = 836 sq. mtrs.)
Thus, if development charges of Rs. 14,23,190/- per bigha are deducted from the sale price of 1 bigha of land @ Rs.
35,11,200/- per bigha, the net profit which remains is Rs.
20,88,010/- per bigha. (Rs. 35,11,200/- -- 14,23,190/-) The petitioner's counsel has further argued that even if 400% appreciation of the said price is considered on account of development, the rate of undeveloped land would be Rs. 14,39,780/-
per bigha.Page 49 of 60
If this amount of Rs. 14,39,780/- is deducted from the sale price per bigha of Rs. 20,88,010/-, the same would come to :
Rs. 20,88,010/- --- Rs. 14,39,780/- = Rs. 6,48,230/-
It is further pleaded that even if this price of Rs. 6,48,230/-
is conservatively rounded off, it would come to Rs. 5,00,000/-.
Petitioner's counsel has claimed that the petitioner is entitled to the minimum fair price of Rs. 5,00,000/- per bigha.
On the other hand, the counsel for UOI has strongly contested the petitioner's claim of minimum Rs. 5,00,000/- per bigha.
UOI has made reference to Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in Ranvir Singh and another Vs. Union of India, AIR 2005 Supreme Court 3467. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paras 28 and 29 of the said judgment, has observed as under :-
"28. The High Court without having regard to different sizes and different categories of land separately took into consideration the value of 48 sq. mts., of land at the rate of Rs. 150/- per sq. mtr. It, keeping in view of the fact that the Delhi Development Authority sought to create Page 50 of 60 lease-hold right whereas upon acquisition of land a freehold right would be created, multiplied the said figure by two and arrived at a conclusion that the market value of 1 sq. mtr. of land at Rohini would be Rs. 300/-. The mean figure thereof was taken at Rs. 200/- per sq. mts, as wholesale price of free-
hold plots in a developed condition. From the said Rs. 200/-, 60% had been deducted towards costs of development and considering the large extent of land, the retail market price was worked out at 80/- per sq. mtr.
29. While adopting the said method, in our opinion, the High Court committed manifest errors. The market value of fully developed land cannot be compared with wholly underdeveloped land although they may be adjoining or situated at a little distance. For determining the market value, it is trite, the nature of the land plays an important role............"
On the face of it, the petitioner's argument looks attractive. But the same when closely examined, needs only to be stated to be rejected, in view of the settled position of law that the rates of developed land cannot be compared with agricultural land, as laid down in judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhim Singh's Page 51 of 60 case, Kurra Sambasiva Rao's case and in Ranvir Singh's case and that of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in American Universal Electric (India) Ltd. and Gajraj Singh's case (supra).
Further, as observed in paras (supra) that the Hon'ble High Court specifically referring to the similar letters of allotment/offer of allotment observed that these documents are not comparable but provide an idea as to value of industrial/developed plot in villages Bawana and Narela and that of potential of the adjoining land. Admittedly, those industrial/residential plots are situated in developed area at a distance of about 6 to 7 km and 8 to 10 km approx. respectively, from village Pooth Khurd and are of little significance.
Even if, the petitioner's argument that the petitioner's land had same potential, as that of Bawana and is entitled to land price as prevalent in village Bawana, is accepted, still the petitioner does not stand to gain. It would be pertinent to mention here that the Hon'ble High Court vide its judgement dated 11.05.2006, in LA Appeal no. 866/05 titled as Mahender Singh vs. UOI, determined the market value of agricultural land of village Bawana acquired vide award no. 1/97-98 at Rs. 1,99,904.68/- per bigha after duly Page 52 of 60 considering the potential of land & other factors. In the said case notification u/s 4 LA Act was issued on 15.11.1996. Thus, if price of Rs. 1,99,904.68/- per bigha as on 15.11.1996, is considered and enhancement @ 12% is given for the intervening period between 15.11.1996 to 07.08.2000 (date of notification u/s 4 LA Act in the instant case) i.e. for 3 years 8 months and 23 days, the same comes to Rs. 2,89,155/- per bigha.
7.5. The petitioner has further argued that the LAC has awarded compensation on the basis of minimum agricultural price of Rs. 13.82 lacs per acre for 'A' category land and Rs. 12.62 lacs per acre for 'B' category, as on 01.04.2000 as fixed vide Govt. policy circular dated 11.09.2001 ; that the notification u/s 4 LA Act in the instant case was issued on 07.08.2000 ; the LAC has not granted any compensation towards the rise in prices during the period 01.04.2000 to 07.08.2000.
The respondents have argued that the abovesaid price of Rs. 13.82 lacs per acre and Rs. 12.62 lacs per acre for blocks A and B, respectively, is for the period 01.04.2000 to 31.03.2001. Therefore, the price of the acquired land has been correctly fixed at Page 53 of 60 above rate as notification under Section 4 LA Act in the instant case was issued on 7.8.2000 i.e. prior to 31.3.01.
I have perused the award carefully. It is seen that LAC at pages no. 16 & 17 of the Award, has mentioned that :-
"In a policy announcement which came into effect from the financial year 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 i.e. 1.4.1999 and 1.4.2000 the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi fixed the indicative prices of agricultural land @ 12.16 and 13.82 lacs per acre for the acquisition of agricultural land vide their order No. F.9(20)/80/L&B/LA/8490 dated 11.09.2001 which are applicable w.e.f 1.4.1999 and 1.4.2000 respectively.
In view of the absence of any
documentary evidence on record to the
contrary, I find Rs. 13.82 lacs per acre to be the most reasonable price for best kind i.e. land falling in 'A' block as in 01.04.2000. The notification under section 4 was issued on 7.8.2000 and the price of the land is to be determined as on the date of notification under section 4 of LA Act itself. I, accordingly, determine the market value of the 'A' Block land @ Rs. 13.82 lakhs per acre or Rs. 287916.66 per bigha.Page 54 of 60
I have also perused policy of Govt. of N.C.T, Delhi dated 11.09.2001. It is observed that vide said policy the Government reviewed minimum price of agricultural land determined vide its previous policy dated 21.11.2000. The Govt. after review fixed the minimum price of agricultural land for acquisition purposes as under
:-
"It has been decided..... to fix the minimum land price in the NCT of Delhi as under for acquisition purposes with immediate effect, in such cases where notification u/s 4 under the LA Act has been issued between 1.4.99 and 31.3.2001 and award has not been announced.
For all agricultural land (excluding lands situated in river bed between the forward bunds) 1.4.1999 to 31.3.2000 Rs. 12.16 lakh per acre (Rupees Twelve lakh sixteen thousand only) 1.4.2000 to 31.3.2001 Rs. 13.82 lakh per acre* (Rupees Thirteen lakh eighty two thousand only) *These rates will supercede the interim rate circulated vide letter No. 9(20)/80/L&B/LA/12358 dt. 21.11.2000....."Page 55 of 60
Thus from the award and the abovesaid policy/circular dated 11.09.2001, it is clear that minimum price of Rs. 13.82 lacs per acre was fixed by the Govt. for the agricultural land acquired during the period 01.04.2000 to 31.3.2001 after due cosideration. The LAC has adopted the said price.
However, keeping in mind the above findings and the potentiality of land of village Pooth Khurd, I consider it appropriate to compensate the petitioner by giving a rise for the period 01.04.2000 to 07.08.2000. I am of the considered opinion that enhacement @ 12% in market value of Rs. 13.82 lacs per acre for the intervening period between 01.04.2000 to 07.08.2000 (rounded off to 4 months) shall meet the ends of justice. In this regard, I find support from the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in the case of Rameshwar Solanki & another Vs UOI & another, AIR 1995 DELHI 358, wherein escalation at the rate of 12% per annum was allowed to arrive at a fair market value. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of Tindey Vs Ors. VS UOI & Ors, 2000(54) DRJ(DB) 384. The Division Bench of Hon"ble High Court in Bedi Ram Vs. Union of India & Anr., 93 (2001), DLT 150 (DB), has also held the increase of 12% p.a., to be reasonable. Page 56 of 60
Increase @ 12% for 4 months on the market value of Rs. 13,82,000/- per acre would be Rs. 55,280.00/-, it would be Rs. 11,516.64 per bigha. Thus, enhanced compensation would come to Rs. 14,37,280/- per acre or Rs. 2,99,433.30 per bigha.
Thus, by giving 12% increase for the intervening period on the price fixed by LAC in the instant case, the petitioner is getting a price of Rs. 2,99,433.30 per bigha, for his agricultural land as against price of Rs. 2,89,155/- per bigha, arrived at by giving 12% rise on the market value of land of village Bawana, determined by the Hon'ble High Court in Mahender Singh's case. 7.5.1. In view of the above, I determine the market price of the said land @ Rs. 14,37,280/- per acre or Rs. 2,99,433.30 per bigha. 7.6. Petitioner has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- on account of loss of trees claiming that the LAC has not awarded any compensation towards 04 Neem trees (15 years old) and 15 Sisham trees (10 years old) which were standing on the said land. The respondent has stated that no trees were standing on Page 57 of 60 petitioner's land at the time of acquisition.
I have perused the award carefully. It is seen that the LAC at page 18 of the Award, has mentioned the details of trees, which were standing on the acquired land. No tree has been shown to be standing on the petitioner's land.
Petitioner has not led any evidence in this regard, even before this court. Therefore, the petitioner has failed to prove his claim for compensation towards trees.
8.0. The findings on Issue no.1 may be summarized here under:
i) Petitioner has failed to prove his claim for enhanced compensation (a) on the basis of agricultural yield; and
(b) on the basis that his land would have fetched higher price than fixed by LAC, being fit for residential/commercial purpose.
ii) Petitioner's contention that his land is of 'A' category and that LAC has erred in placing his entire land in category 'B', is accepted.
iii) Petitioner is entitled to enhanced compensation @ Rs.Page 58 of 60
14,37,280/- per acre or Rs. 2,99,433.30 per bigha for his entire land.
9.0 Findings on Issue No.2 - RELIEF 9.1 In view of the findings on Issue no.1, the petitioner is entitled to the following reliefs: -
i) uniform rate of compensation for his entire land, in terms of (ii) below;
ii) enhanced compensation Rs. 14,37,280/- per acre or Rs. 2,99,433.30 per bigha ;
iii) additional amount u/s 23 (1A) @ 12% p.a., on the market value from the date of notification u/s 4 of the LA Act till the date of award or dispossession, whichever is earlier ;
iv) solatium u/s 23(2) of LA Act @ 30% on the enhanced amount of compensation ;
v) interest under Section 28 of L.A Act at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year from the date of dispossession and at the rate of 15% per annum on the Page 59 of 60 difference between the enhanced compensation awarded by this court and the compensation awarded by the LAC for the subsequent period till the payment ;
10.2 Reference is disposed of accordingly.
10.3 Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (POONAM A. BAMBA) today on 08.10.2007 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE;
DELHI Page 60 of 60 Page 61 of 60