Delhi District Court
Smt. Chawli Devi (Deceased) vs Union Of India on 31 May, 2007
IN THE COURT OF SHRI YASHWANT KUMAR :
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (LAC) : DELHI
LAC NO : 334/1/06 AWARD NO : 13/1992-93
Old No. : 157/2005 VILLAGE : Garhi Mendu, Delhi
In the matter of :
1 Smt. Chawli Devi (deceased)
through her LRs
i) Smt. Sarswati Devi @ Sarbati
W/o Sh.Shyam Lal
ii) Smt. Shyam Wati
W/o Sh.Jagdish
iii) Smt. Natho
W/o Sh. Chander
iv) Smt. Ram Wati
W/o Sh. Paras Ram
v) Smt. Suresh
W/o Sh. Mahavir
All daughters of late Sh.Chawli Devi
R/o village Garhi Maindu, Delhi
...Petitioners
Versus
1 Union of India
through Land Acquisition Collector/ADM
North-East, Nand Nagri, Delhi
2 Delhi Development Authority
through its Vice Chairman,
I.N.A., Vikas Sadan, New Delhi
...Respondents
AWARD REFERENCE U/S 18 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1 Vide notification No.F.9(1)/89-L&B(i) dated 23.06.1989 U/s 4 of the LA Act (hereinafter referred to as the ACT) and declaration was also made vide notification No.F.9(1)/89-L&B/LA(ii) dated 20.06.1990 U/sec. 6 of the LA Act. The land including the land of the petitioners situate in the revenue estate of village Garhi Mendu, Delhi was acquired by the Govt. for the purpose of Planned Development of Delhi. The Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as LAC) after completing all the requisite formalities as provided under the Act passed the award bearing No.13/1992-93 and assessed the compensation @ Rs.27,344/- per bigha.
2 Feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the LAC, the petitioners herein filed reference petition U/s 18 of the LA Act for proper adjudication/market value which was sent to the reference court. 3 In the reference petition, the petitioner has sought the enhancement of compensation on the grounds that the petitioner is the bhumidhar of the land situated in the revenue estate of village Garhi Maindu, Delhi. The village Garhi Mendu had been within the limits of Municipal Corporation of Delhi for the last so many years. The village Garhi Mendu and the land under acquisition is situated in the neighbourhood in the very well developed colonies on account of colonization in and around the land under acquisition. The LAC has completely ignored the factum of rising trend or prices in and around the land under acquisition. The petitioner's land has acquired a potential value as the building site. The LAC has not awarded adequate compensation to the petitioner according to the market price of the land prevalent on the date of notification u/s 4 of the LA Act. Even otherwise, the LAC has not made any attempt to find out the market price of the petitioner's land and other lands of the estate. The LAC has not cared to look at the sale transactions in their revenue estate and or in the adjacent revenue estates. The LAC has further ignored the well organised principles of assessment of market value of the agricultural land and the LAC has committed an error of law in awarding compensation according to the Delhi Administration's order No.F.9(20)/80 L&H dt. 03.05.1990. It is further stated that the order of the Delhi Administration is not at all a correct guie for the purpose of fixation of market value of the land and it is not a true representation of the market value of the petitioner's land which is many times higher than was has been awarded by the LAC. Therefore, the LAC has awarded compensation arbitrarily which is inadequate and not reasonable compensation. Further, the LAC has completely ignored the fact that the basic amenities of life like electricity, water and transportations are available to the petitioner's land. On these grounds, the petitioner has filed this reference petition claiming the market value of the acquired land of the petitioner at Rs.1,000/- per sq. yard or Rs.10,00,000/- per bigha besides statutory benefits and interests.
4 The UOI, in its written statement has raised the objections on the ground that the Delhi Land Reform Act is applicable to the land in dispute. The correctness of the khasra nos., their area and the extent of share of the petitioners therein admitted only to the extent as specified by the LAC in his statement furnished U/s 19 of the LA Act. In response to notice issued by the LAC U/sec 9 & 10 of the LA Act and petitioners have preferred claim. The land in question is not surrounded by any developed or un-developed colony and can only be used for agricultural. There was no structure, tree, well, or tube well on the land in question at the time of publication of notification U/sec. 4 of the LA Act.
5 DDA, in its written statement, has raised the objection on the grounds that while making award No.13/1992-93 relating to the village Garhi Maindu, Delhi, had taken into consideration the market value of the land on the basis of sale deeds of the adjoining lands of the area as well as all other documents which were made available and produced before the LAC. Moreover, the area of the land and other appurtenance/amenities/facilities were also taken into consideration while assessing the compensation by the LAC. The amount awarded by the LAC in the present case is adequate, sufficient, just and legal which is based on cogent and reliable evidence. The present reference petition is barred by the period of limitation. It is further stated that without prejudice to the aforesaid preliminary objections, the petitioners are not admitted to be the owners/bhoomidars or interested parties being in possession of the land falling under the said award. On merits, it is admitted that the land bearing khasra nos.277/72-76 (1-00), 103 (4-18) total measuring 05 bighas 18 biswas was acquired vide award bearing no.13 of 1992-93 and physical possession of the said land has been taken over by the DDA on 25.01.2000 and has been transferred to ED 5 on 24.10.2000. All other averments made in the reference petition have been denied.
6 Smt.Chawli Devi, the petitioner had expired and the application U/o 22 Rule 3 r/w/sec. 151 CPC was filed on behalf of the LRs of late Smt.Chawli Devi on 07.04.2006 wherein it was stated that Smt.Chawli Devi expired on 25.11.2002 leaving behind the LRs namely, Smt. Sarswati Devi, Smt. Shyam Wati, Smt.Natho, Smt.Ram Wati & Smt. Suresh - all daughters of Smt.Chawli Devi. The LAC also filed the verification report of the aforesaid LRs. Separate statement of Smt.Shyam Wati & Smt.Ram Wati were also recorded in this court on 20.07.2006 in this regard. The counsel for the petitioner also filed a certified copy of the order dt. 28.07.2005 passed by the Ld. ADJ, Delhi in the reference u/s 30-31 of the LA Act vide the LAC No.26/2/06 whereby, the LRs of deceased petitioner herein were brought on record. Vide order dt.15.09.2006 of this court, the aforesaid LRs were brought on record on behalf of late Smt.Chawli Devi in this reference. The application on behalf of the LRs of late Smt.Chawli Devi was filed on 07.04.2006 whereas late Smt.Chawli Devi expired on 25.11.2002, therefore, the LRs application was filed beyond the period of limitation. The LRs, in their application, have not mentioned any reason as to why the LRs application was filed at the belated stage. Whether the LRs of late Smt.Chawli Devi are entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation, if awarded by the reference court. In this context, a reliance can be had upon the judgment in the RFA No.107/1986 titled Narain Singh etc Vs Vijay Singh etc decided on 25.08.2005, it was held by the Hon'ble DB of the High Court of Delhi that ''there is delay of several years in preferring the application for substitution and the reasons for the delay are clearly attributable to the applicants themselves. In the circumstances, while allowing this application, it is directed that applicants shall not be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount for the period of delay from 18.02.1994 to 24.04.2006 in preferring the application for substitution of legal representatives.'' In the present reference, the LRs of the deceased petitioner Smt.Chawli Devi has not given any bonafide and genuine reasons which prevented them to file the LRs application. It is the responsibility of the claimants to keep follow up of the proceedings of the case in which the claimants are litigating for their claim. Thus, in view of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble DB of the High Court of Delhi, the LRs of the petitioner late Smt.Chawli Devi herein are not entitled to interest on the enhanced amount for the period of delay from 25.11.2002 to 07.04.2006 except the period of 90 days prescribed for filing the LRs application. 7 On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by this court on 14.11.2006 which are as under :
1 What was the market value of the land in question at the time of issuance of notice u/s 4 of the LA Act? Onus on parties.
2 Whether the petitioner is entitled to enhancement in compensation, if so, to what amount? OPP 3 Relief
8 The counsel for the petitioners in support of his case for enhancement in compensation has tendered in evidence the copy of the lease deed dt. 20.12.1988 of plot No.504, Block C-12, Yamuna Vihar is Mark- A. The copy of the perpetual lease dt. 07.07.1988 of plot No.182, block B-3, Yamuna Vihar is Mark-B and the copy of the perpetual lease dt. 19.09.1989 of plot no. 136 in block C-12, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi the same is Mark-C. The copy of the perpetual lease dt. 10.05.1990 of plot no.183 in block B-3, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi and the same is Mark-D, the copy of the possession proceedings of award no.13/1992-93 of village Garhi Mendu dt. 25.01.2000 the same is Ex.P-1, the policy of Delhi Admn dated 27.04.1990 for fixing the market rates in agriculture land in Delhi the same is Ex.P-2, the copy of the judgment passed in LAC No.142/90 titled as Balli Ram Sharma Vs UOI of village Kondli dt. 20.07.1992 the same is Ex.P-3. The copy of the judgment reported in 55 (1994) DLT 511 (DB) titled as Karan Singh Vs UOI of village Kharoli dt. 11.08.1994 the same is Ex.P-4. The copy of the judgment passed in LAC No.122/91 titled as Bhika Ram Vs UOI of village Ghazipur dt. 18.05.1992 and same is Ex.P-5, the copy of the judgment passed in RFA No.84/99 and other of village Chilla Saroda Bangar titled as Harpat Vs UOI dt. 12.07.2002 and same is Ex.P-6. Copy of the judgment passed in 96/85 titled Avtar Singh Vs UOI of village Jhilmil Tahir Pur dt. 15.10.1987 and the same is Ex.P-7. Copy of the judgment reported in 48 (1992) DLT 202 (DB) titled as Chandan Vs UOI of village Tughalakabad dt. 20.07.1992 and the same is Ex.P-8; copy of the schedule of rates by the Ministry of Urban development, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi dt. 24.01.1992 and the same is Ex.P-9; copy of the award No.18/1992-93 of village Khirzabad dt. 19.06.1992 and the same is Ex.P-10; copy of the award No.14/1992-93 of village Kilokari dt. 19.06.1992 and the same is Ex.P-11; copy of award No.22/1992-93 of village Chak Chilla dt. 19.06.1992 and the same is Ex.P-12 ; certified copy of the judgment passed in LAC no.13/04 titled as Sri Ram Vs UOI of village Khizrabad in award No.18/1992-93 dt. 25.09.2006 and the same is Ex.P-13 and certified copy of the judgment passed in LAC No.1/03 titled as Bed Ram Vs UOI of village Kilokari in award No.14/1992-93 dt. 18.10.2006 and the same is Ex.P-14, the certified copy of the statement of Sh.T.S.Joshi, Halka Patwari of village Garhi Mendu, Delhi in LAC No.94/1/06 titled Richa Ram Vs UOI dt. 21.02.2007 and the same is Ex.P-15. Whereas, the counsel for the respondents have tendered in evidence the copy of the award no.13/1992-93 pertaining to village Garhi Maindu, Delhi as Ex.R-1. 9 I have heard the Ld. Counsel for both the parties and have perused the entire records. My issue-wise findings are as under : ISSUE NOS.1 & 2 10 Both the issues are inter-connected and I shall decide both the issues together. The onus to prove these issues is upon the petitioners and the respondents. The petitioners have sought enhancement in compensation on the aforesaid grounds which are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity. It has been held in Catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that while assessing the market value of the land which is sought to be acquired by the government, situation, nature, potential/ user and neighbouring land, etc, is to be considered. In this context, I would prefer to rely upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well as the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The basic test was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Dy. Collector & Anr. Vs Kurra Sambasiva Rao & Others, AIR 1997 SC 2625 and it was held that :
''The court is required to keep at the back of its mind that the object of assessment is to arrive at reasonable and adequate market value of the lands. In that process, though some guess work is involved. Feats of imagination should be eschewed and mechanical assessment of the evidence should be avoided. Even in the absence of oral evidence adduced by the Land Acquisition Officer or the beneficiaries, the judges are to draw from their experience the normal human conduct of the parties and bona fide and genuine sale transactions are guiding star in evaluating the evidence. Misplaced sympathies or undue emphasis solely on the claimants right to compensation would place very heavy burden on the public exchequer to which other everyone contributes by direct or indirect taxes'' In Spl. Tehsildar, Land Acqn. Vishakhapatnam Vs Smt. A. Mangala Gowri AIR 1992 Supreme Court 666, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that :
''In determining the market value of the land, the price paid in sale or purchase of the land acquired within a reasonable time from the date of the acquisition of the land in question would be the best piece of evidence. In its absence the price paid for a land possessing similar advantages to the land in the neighbourhood of the land acquired in or about the time of the notification would supply the date to assess the market value. Where there were bona fide and genuine sale transactions in respect of the same land under acquisition wherein the claimant who was vendee had sold at Rs.5 per sq. yard, the High Court would not be justified in excluding such transactions and placing reliance on award of some other land for awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.10 per sq. yard, within a time lag of nine months from the bona fide transaction by seller.'' In the case of Shakuntalabai (Smt) & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported as (1996) 2 SCC 152 wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that when on record there is evidence of the value of the acquired land itself, then it is unnecessary to travel beyond that evidence and consider the market value prevailing in the adjacent land. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under :
''It is seen that if there is evidence or admission on behalf of the claimants as to the market value commanded by the acquired land itself, the need to travel beyond the boundary of the acquired land is obviated. The need to take into consideration the value of the lands adjacent to the acquired land or near about the area which possessed same potentiality to work out the prices fetched therein for determination of market value of the acquired land would arise only when there is no evidence of the value of the acquired land. In a case where evidence of the value of the acquired land itself is available on record, it is unnecessary to travel beyond that evidence and consider the market value prevailing in the adjacent lands.''
11 Mark-A is the copy of perpetual lease dt. 20.12.1988 which was executed by Delhi Administration (Land & Housing Department) in favour of Smt. Satya Bhama W/o Sh.Babu Ram & Sh.Babu Ram S/o late Sh.Kabul Singh in respect of plot no.504 measuring 70.18 sq. mtrs at block no.C-12, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi for a sum of Rs.1,11,100/-. Mark-B is the copy of perpetual lease dt. 07.07.1988 which was executed by Delhi Administration (Land & Housing Department) in favour of Sh.Gopal Krishan S/o Sh.Atma Ram & Smt.Shashi Aggarwal w/o Sh.Gopal Kriisan in respect of plot no.182 measuring 69.25 sq. mtrs at block no.B-3, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. Mark-C is the copy of perpetual lease dt. 19.09.1989 which was executed by Delhi Administration (Land & Housing Department) in favour of Sh.Narender Kumar Jain and Smt.Maya Devi Jain in respect of plot no.136 measuring 70 sq. mtrs at block no.C-12, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi for a sum of Rs.1,11,100/-. Mark-D is the copy of perpetual lease dt. 10.05.1990 which was executed by Delhi Administration (Land & Housing Department) in favour of Gaya Prasad Gupta and Smt.Kastoori in respect of plot no.183 measuring 69.25 sq. mtrs at block no.B-3, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi for a sum of Rs.1,55,000/-.
12 Since Mark-A to Mark-D are the perpetual leases in respect of the developed plots sold through the public auctions, in this context, I would prefer to place a reliance upon the judgment dt. 03.03.2005 in WP (C) 76- 79/2004 titled Chet Ram Sharma & Ors Vs UOI & Ors, the land situate in village Bahapur, New Delhi was acquired vide the notification dt. 28.11.2002 U/s 4 (1) r/w/sec. 17 (1) (4) of the LA Act. The petitioners therein relied upon the public auction conducted by the DDA in relation to plot No. 70, Nehru Place, wherein the land was auctioned at a price of Rs.1,91,666/- per sq. mtr. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that:
''Auction of a developed plot by a public authority may not be a proper guide for determination of such compensation. It will be appropriate to refer to the judgment in the case of Santa (Died) & Ors Vs State of Haryana & Anr 2000 (2) PLR 501 while referring to various judgments of the Supreme Court as well as of that Court, it was held as under:-
'It is settled principle of law that the plot which are developed by the Government or its instrumentalities in the larger public interest after incurring huge expenditure cannot form basis for determining the compensation payable to the land being acquired by the Government for achieving that very public purpose. The cost indicated includes various other ingredients and does not indicate the excessive cost factor of the land price. It was for the claimants to bring appropriate evidence on record for bifurcation of such costing before they could derive any benefit from such documents.
This court has the occasion to discuss the relevancy of such public auctions or allotment of plots by the public bodies in different cases. In the case of State of Haryana and another V.Ram Chander and others, RFA No. 37 of 1996 decided on 13.05.1999 while considering somewhat similar question where auctions were held by HUDA of commercial areas, the Court observed as under:-
Those instances are to my mind not relevant considerations for determining the fair market value of the acquired land at the time of notification. Varied reasons can be given for rejecting these instances. Firstly, these plots are developed plots on which the Government or HUDA has already spent considerable amount. Secondly, these are commercial sites and can never be equated to the value of huge agricultural land like the land acquired in the present case. Thirdly, these auction prices are not true index of a fair market value of the land at the relevant time because of the element of speculation and unfair competition in such auctions. Fourthly, the auctions have an element of uncertainty and they cannot be equated to a sale deed. It will depend on the terms and conditions of the auction because normally very meager amount in payable at the time of auction and balance is to be paid in instalments. Whether balance amount was paid or not, whether final documents of lease-deed or sale deed were executed in favour of the bidder? Ex. P31 and Ex. P32 are based on such terms only and lastly but not the least these are such small pieces of land that they cannot form a reasonable and fair basis for determination of compensation payable to the claimants. Once this evidence is held to be irrelevant, the compensation cannot be granted on the mere asking of the claimants which they stated in their examination in chief and PW3, PW4 and PW9 respectively.
Again in the case of State of Haryana Vs Rajinder Kumar, RFA No. 2351 of 1998 decided on 03.06.1999 the court held as under:-
Serious expenditure and efforts are put in by the State or authorities like PUDA before the developed, residential or commercial plots are put to public auction. Cost of land is one of the components of the minimum auction price fixed by the authorities. Auction price is not the price indicative only of the cost of land. It includes various other factors and components in its composition. It is a matter of public knowledge that it includes maintenance, construction and maintenance of roads in times to come, element of interest payable on different heads and other ancillary factors. An auction/bid is primarily is a speculative feature.' The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the aforesaid WP (C) 76-79/2004 further held that :
''Thus, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the auction held by the DDA in regard to plot No. 70 in the year 1995 cannot be the sale criteria for determining the compensation payable to the land owners, prima facie, and at this stage of the proceedings. We would not prefer to rely upon this document as the petitioner can hardly be permitted to take undue advantage of public obligations of the Government and its development policies.'' In the present reference, the land in question is not developed as in the case of the plots mentioned in Mark- A to Mark-D, therefore, in view of the aforesaid judgment, the petitioners herein cannot take the undue advantage of the development policy of the Government for determining the market value of the land in dispute.
13 Ex.P-1 is the copy of the possession proceedings of award no.13/1992-93 of village Garhi Mendu dt. 25.01.2000. Ex.P-2 is the press note wherein, Delhi Administration has decided to fix a minimum price for agricultural land in the Union Territory of Delhi w.e.f. 27.04.1990 and the Delhi Administration fixed the minimum price of Rs.4.65 lakhs per acre for all agricultural lands except those in the river bed. Further, for lands in the river bed, enclosed between the forward bunds, the minimum price has been fixed as Rs.1.5 lakhs per acre and these minimum prices are based on an analysis of the compensation granted by the LAC, enhancement given by various courts in recent years as also on the information gathered from a wide spectrum of other sources. As per the aforesaid fixation of minimum price for the agricultural lands and those in the river bed, these minimum prices have no application to cases in which awards have already been annnounced.
14 Now, let us peruse the awards of the LACs and judgments passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Ld.ADJs, Delhi relied upon by the petitioners herein and to examine as to how far the aforesaid awards and judgments are relevant and applicable for determining the fair market value of the land in question. Ex.P-3 is the judgment dt. 20.08.1992 passed by the then Ld. ADJ, Delhi in LAC No.142/1990 titled Sh.Bali Ram Sharma & Anr. Vs UOI wherein the land situate in the revenue estate of village Kondli was acquired pursuant to the issuance of notification u/s 4 of the LA Act dt. 17.11.1980 followed by declaration U/s 6 of the LA Act dt. 29.09.1981 vide award no.80/1982-83. The LAC assessed the market value of the land at Rs.8,500/- per bigha as on 17.11.1980. The petitioners therein were not satisfied with the assessment made by the LAC and preferred for reference U/s 18 of the LA Act for enhancement in compensation. The reference court, after considering the materials and the judgments placed on record, assessed the market value of the land at Rs.76,550/- per bigha as on 17.11.1980. Ex.P-4 is the judgment dt. 11.08.1994 passed by the Hon'ble DB of the High Court of Delhi in RFA No. 185/93 along with other RFAs reported as Karan Singh & Ors Vs UOI wherein the lands situate in the revenue estate of village Gharauli were acquired pursuant to the issuance of notification u/s 4 of the LA Act dt. 17.11.1980 followed by declaration U/s 6 of the LA Act dt. 02.09.1981 vide award no.18/1983-84. The LAC assessed the market value of the land at Rs.9,000/-, Rs.7,000/- & Rs.4,000/- for different categories of lands per bigha as on 17.11.1980. Feeling dissatisfied with the amount offered, the claimants therein sought references for determination of the amount of compensation. The earliest award, as observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in point of time was dt. 20.07.1989 in which the market value of three categories of lands specified about was fixed at Rs.23,000/- per bigha, Rs.21,000/- per bigha & Rs.19,000/- per bigha respectively instead of Rs.9,000/-, Rs.7,000/- & Rs.4,000/- per bigha as fixed by the LAC. The said award made on 20.07.1989 was followed in determining the amount of compensation in all other cases except in four cases (which were decided on 20.08.1992, 21.01.1993 & 28.01.1993) in which the Ld. ADJ, Delhi fixed a flat rate of Rs.76.550/- per bigha as the market value for all categories of land irrespective of its nature. The claimants in the aforesaid RFAs sought further enhancement in the compensation amount at Rs.1,25,000/- per bigha. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that :
'In respect to the aforementioned two sets of instances of small plots of land located in Jhilmil Tahirpur and NOIDA suffice it to say that all are post notification instances. In the instant case notification under section 4 was issued on 17.11.1980. All transactions are subsequent to the date of notification under section 4. In the absence of any evidence on record that the prices of the land remained static from the date of preliminary notification till the date of these transactions or the evidence that during the intervening period not only the market remained static but also there was no development in contemplation affecting the trend of prices of lands in the locality, the post notification instances reflecting. The market value in already developed area will neither be relevant pieces of evidence nor a correct guide in assessing the amount of compensation payable to claimants.
In Administrator General of West Bengal V. Collector, Varanasi (AIR 1988 SC 943) it was held that post notification transactions can be taken into account in determining the compensation under certain circumstances where it is shown that the market was stable and there was no fluctuation in the prices between the date of preliminary notification and the date of such subsequent transactioin. It was observed that:
'But this principle could be appealed to only where there is evidence to the effect that there was no upward surge in the prices in the interregnums. The burden of establishing this would be squarely on the party relying on such subsequent transaction.' It is a settled position in law and as is contemplated in Section 23 of the Act that determination of the amount of compensation has to be on the crucial date of publication of notification under section 4 of the Act. The determination has to be made, as held in chiimanlal Hargovinddas V. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and Another (AIR 1988 SC 1652), on the date line of valuation as if the valuer is a hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase land from the open market and is prepared to pay a reasonable price as on that day and it is to be assumed that the vendor is willing to sell the land at a reasonable price. In doing so by the instance method the Court has to co-relate the market value reflected in the most comparable instance which provides the index of market value. Post notification instances can be taken into account only if they are very promiate, genuine and the acquuisition itself has not motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of the resultant improvement in development prospects.' It was further held that :
Prices fetched for similar land with similar advantages and potentialities under bonafide transactions of sale at or about the time of the preliminary notification are the usual and indeed the best evidence of the market value. The well known principles are aksi bituced in Koyappathodi V. State of Kerala (AIR 1991 SC 20207) as follows :
''It is settled law that the methods of valuation to be adopted in ascertaining the market value of the land as on the date of the notification are : (i) opinion of experts; (ii) the price paid within a reasonable time in bona fide transaction of the purchase or sale of the lands acquired or the lands adjacent to the lands acquired or the lands adjacent to the lands acquired and possessing similar advantages and (iii) a number of years purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the lands acquired. These methods, however, do not preclude the Court from taking any other special circumstances obtained in an appropriate case into consideration. As the object being always as near as possible in an estimate of the market value in arriving at a reasonable correct market value, it may be necessary to take even two or all those matters into account inasmuch as the exact valuation is not always possible as no two lands may be the same either in respect of the situation or the extent or the potentiality nor is it possible in all cases to have reliable material from which that valuation can be accurately determined.
As regards the location of the property vis-a-vis its potentiality, the Collector in his award observed that :
''The present land being adjacent to the land of village Kondli is very much similar in fertility, nature and other factors therefore the award announced recently in village Kondli can be taken as a proper and adequate guidance in this case but the land under acquisition being much nearer to the main road and U.P. Border and Industrial complex has better chances to fetch more market value as compared to Kondli. Secondly it has good potentiality of building purposes....'' Even otherwise, the petitioner's land is on the date of notification was agricultural one, whereas the land rates of residential plots are being applied to the land of the petitioners while assessing the market value of the land of the petitioners. This is being so done because of looking at the potentiality of the land. Still it is considered expedient to take lowest rate as were prevalent of the residential plots in the year 1981. Ex.A-11 suggests the land rates at the rate of Rs.135/- per sq. mtr. where the date of execution of the lease deed is 7.8.1981 whereas the lease deed Ext.A-12 indicates the land rates at Rs.175/- per sq. mtr. The land rates of the petitioner's land are to be taken as Rs.135/- per sq. mtr. of course develoopment charges need to be deducted as plots so given by the NOIDA authority to lessees were developed one. How much deduction should be made towards development is answered in AIR 1992 SC page 166 and also in the case titled Chander V. Union of India in RFA No.250/90 where in both the judgments 1/3rd of the market price of the land were directed to be deducted towards development of drains, electricity and other amenities which are in fact to plan lay out for building colonies.'' 15 Ex.P-5 is the judgment dt. 18.05.1992 passed by the then Ld. ADJ, Delhi in LAC No.122/91 titled Sh.Bhika Ram & Ors Vs UOI wherein the land situate in village Ghazipur, Delhi was acquired vide the notification dt.
23.08.1988 u/s 4 of the LA Act. The LAC assessed the market value of the land at Rs.20,000/- per bigha. Feeling dissatisfied with the assessment made by the LAC, the claimants preferred the reference claiming compensation @ Rs.2,000/- per sq. yard. The reference court, after considering the materials i.e. perpetual lease deeds, fixation of minimum price of agricultural lands in the Union Territory of Delhi approved by the Lt.Governor, Delhi w.e.f.
27.04.1990 as well as the judgments placed on records, fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.72,650/- per bigha. Ex.P-6 is the judgment dt. 12.07.2002 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in RFA No.84 of 1999 along with other connected RFAs in Sh.Harprat & Ors Vs UOI & Ors.
wherein the land situate in the revenue estate of village Chilla Saroda Bangar, Delhi was acquired for planned development of Delhi through notification issued u/s 4 of the LA Act on 17.11.1980 which was followed by declaration u/s 6 of the LA Act on 29.09.1981. The LAC offered compensation at Rs.8,000/- per bigha. On reference, the reference court declined to enhance the amount of compensation. The claimants filed the aforesaid appeals claiming enhancement compensation at Rs.400/- per sq. yard. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in the aforesaid RFAs held that:
''Before we proceed further, it will be but appropriate to take into consideration the location to take into consideration the location of the revenue estate Chilla Saroda Bangar, Delhi which is subject matter of these appeals. Revenue estate of village Chilla Saroda Bangar is surrounded by the lands of villages Dallupura, Kondli and Gharauli towards North East; sector 14, 14A, 16A & 17 NOIDA are immediately towards South East. DDA colony of Mayur Vihar Phase-I and II and Patpat Ganj, Jhilmil Tahirpur are towards North West. Out of the three revenue estates of Dallupura, Kondli and Gharauli lying towards the North East Dallupura being the nearest followed by Kondli and Gharauli whereas Mayur Vihar Phase-I is immediately towards North and Sector 14 and 14A are just touching on the South Eastern Side.'' It was further held that :
''Village Dallupura was adjoining the revenue estate of Chilla Saroda Bangar towards North East. Revenue estate of Jhilmil Tahirpur wherein were located industrial and residential areas was in close proximity towards North Wester side with all civic amenities like electricity, road, transport, sewage, telephone and school available within revenue estate of Chilla Saroda Bangar as on the date of issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act. This topography of village chilla Saroda Bangar as is available on the file can also be co-related with the Eicher map wherein revenue estate of Chilla Saroda Bangar is shown located just touching Yamuna Marginal Band Road, namely, Najafgarh Road.'' 16 Ex.P-7 is the judgment dt. 15.10.1987 passed by the Ld. ADJ, Delhi in LAC No.96/85 titled S.Avtar Singh Vs UOI wherein the land situate in village Jhilmil Tahirpur was acquired for the planned Development of Delhi pursuant to the notification issued u/s 4 of the LA Act on 27.07.1981 followed by declaration u/s 6 of the LA Act issued on 26.03.1982. The LAC awarded compensation @ Rs.70,000/- per bigha i.e. Rs.70/- per sq. yard. The Ld. ADJ, Delhi fixed the market value of the land at Rs.625/- per sq. yard as on 27.07.1981. Ex.P-8 is the judgment dt. 20.07.1992 passed by the Hon'ble DB of the High Court of Delhi in the case reported in Chandan & Ors Vs UOI 48 (1992) DLT 202 (DB) wherein the land situate in the revenue estate of village Tughalkabad, Delhi was acquired vide the notification u/s 4 of the LA Act issued on 23.01.1965 followed by the declaration u/s 6 of the LA Act on 30.10.1969. The LAC assessed the compensation payable at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per bigha.
It was held by the Hon'ble DB of the High Court of Delhi that :
''It is not disputed before us that colony of Kalkaji was carved out of the land of the village Tughlakabad. The colony is developed with roads, parks schools and having other civil amenities. The circular of the Central Government containing information for guidance of leaseholders fixes the market value of the residential plots in Kalkaji at the rate of Rs.60/- per sq. yard. It is metnioned in the circular that the land value indicated in it was determined some time in 1965 and though issued in 1966 would not purport to indicate current market value of any particular plot for the purpose of Direct Taxes Act which would depend not only on the exact location of the plot within the specified area but also on the date as on which the valuation had to be made under this respective Acts. The circular also states that the instructions contained therein were for the limited purpose of providing assistance to the lessees in the matter of assessment of charges by the lessor and were, in no way, to be construed as statutory rules and regulations on the subject. Nevertheless, as held in RFA 299/84 the circular does give reasonable basis of the market vlaue of the land in the colony of Kalkaji in the year 1965. It is, therefore, not necessary to refer to any judgment fixing the market value of the adjacent land to the lands subject matter of these appeals when sufficient guidelines could be obtained from the Central Government circular of 1966 itself. The market value of the land in all these appeals has, therefore, to be fixed at Rs.60/- per sq. yard less 1/3rd of the same deducted for the purpose of development of lands. The latest decisioin of the Supreme Court on the question of deduction of 1/3rd of the market value is reported in Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition, Vishakapatnam V. Smt.A.Mangala Gowrl, AIR 1992 Supreme court 666. Reference in this case was made to many earlier decisions of the Supreme Court and one of such decisions is in the case of Tribeni Devi V. Collector of Ranchi, AIR 1972 S.C. 1417, where the court held that ''in order to develop that area at least the value of 1/3 of the land will have to be deducted for roads, drainage and other amenities''. In M/s DLF Housing and Construction (P) Ltd V. Union of India, AIR 1967 Punjab 325 (DB), the Court found that the acquired land was across the road of a developed colony Rajouri Garden. The evidence showed that the sale price of developed plots in the Rajouri Garden. The evidence showed that the sale price of developed plots in the Rajouri Garden came to Rs.23/- per sq. yard. After taking into account the land set apart for roads, open spaces and other facilities and the development charges including the brokerage and administrative expenses the Court found the price of the developed land would work out to Rs.11.56 per sq. yard. That would be about half of the price for a developed plot. In the present case, however, we find that there is no such evidence and we have to adopt the rough and ready method laid by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, we will hold that 1/3rd of the market value be deducted for the development of lands acquired and, thus, the market value would come to Rs.40/- per sq. yard or Rs.40,000/- per bigha.'' 17 Ex.P-9 is the copy of the letter dt. 11.02.1992 issued by Deputy Land & Development Officer, Ministry of Urban Development, L&DO, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi in respect of the schedule of market rates of land in different areas of Delhi/New Delhi under the control of Land & Development office vide letter No.J-22011/1/91-LD dt. 24.01.1992. Since the land in question is situate in the area of North-East District, Delhi. As per the aforesaid letter dt. 24.01.1992, the market rates of land in zone-V, East Delhi have been fixed for residential and commercial purposes which are as follows :
Area Residential Commercial
(per sq. mtr) (per sq. mtr)
Jheel Kuranje Rs.2,550/- Rs.5,100/-
Geeta Colony Rs.2,550/- Rs. 5,100/-
Narela & Other Rs.1,800/- Rs. 3,600/-
outlying colonies
18 Ex.P-10, Ex.P-11 & Ex.P-12 are the copies of the award Nos.18/1992-
93, 14/1992-93 & 22/1992-93 of village Khirzabad, Kilokari & Chak Chilla dt.
19.06.1992 respectively wherein the lands situate in Kheejrabad, Kilokari & Chak Chilla, Delhi were acquired vide the notifications dt. 23.06.1989 followed by declarations U/s 6 of the LA Act on 22.06.1990 for Planned Development of Delhi viz. Channalisation of river Yamuna. The LACs in the aforesaid awards assessed the market value of the lands at Rs.27,344/- per bigha besides statutury benefits and interests. Ex.P-13 is the copy of the judgment dt. 25.09.2006 passed by the Ld. ADJ, Delhi in LAC No.13/06 titled Sri Ram Vs UOI & DDA wherein the land situate in village Khizrabad, Delhi was acquired vide the notification issued u/s 4 of the LA Act on 23.06.1989 followed by declaration U/s 6 of the LA Act 19.06.1992. The LAC assessed the market value of the acquired land as on 23.06.1989 at Rs.27,334/- per bigha. Dissatisfied with the compensation assessed by the LAC, the claimants therein preferred the reference u/s 18 of the LA Act. The claimants therein, in support of their claims for enhancement in compensation, relied upon the judgment reported in 2000 (54) DRJ 384 (DB) titled Tindey & Ors Vs UOI whereby the value of land in village Khizrabad, Delhi notified u/s 4 of the LA Act on 10.05.1976 was assessed at Rs.35,000/- per bigha. In Tindey's case (Supra), the land rate fixed in the case of Diwan Ram Sarup Vs UOI & Ors decided on 23.10.1992 (48) 1992 DLT 600 was based and increased 12% per annum escalation in price. Therefore, the Hon'ble DB of the High Court of Delhi fixed the market value of the land notified u/s 4 on 10.05.1976 at Rs.35,000/- per bigha. The Ld. ADJ, Delhi, while taking into consideration the potential, nature, location, topography & situation of the acquired land therein, also considered whether the rate of land can be assessed on the basis of Tindey's case (Supra) after granting an increase at 12% from 10.05.1976 i.e. the date of notification U/s 4 of the LA Act in Tindey's case till 23.06.1989 i.e. the date of notification U/s 4 of the LA Act in Sri Ram's case. It was also considered whether the land involved in earlier awards can be differentiated from the land acquired in the case of Sri Ram (Supra). The market value of the land had been assessed in Tindey's case considering the location of the acquired land in the river bed. The Ld. ADJ, Delhi in the case of Sri Ram (Supra) also mentioned that the rate of Sailabi land (i.e. the land falling in river bed) classified in category B acquired vide award No.75/86-87 in village Khizrabad notified u/s 4 on 05.07.73 for planned development of Delhi was assessed by the Ld.Predecessor court in LAC No.41/93 entitled Raghbar Dayal Vs. UOI decided on 26.05.03 @ Rs.30,500/- relying upon Diwan Sarup's case (Supra) and granting increase @ 12% per annum. The Ld. ADJ, Delhi in the case of Sri Ram (Supra) further considered that no specific evidence was led by the petitioners or the respondents to specify the exact location of the land. The LAC had merely applied the rates on the basis of policy of Govt. of Delhi applicable to the land situated in forward bund in river bed and in the absence of any specific evidence led by the respondents therein to show that the land in the case of Sri Ram (Supra) is distinguishable from the land involved in earlier award which was also situated in river bed as referred in Tindey's case, according to the Ld.ADJ, Delhi, it may not be appropriate to assess the same differently at lower rates of Rs.27,344/- per bigha as allotted by the LAC. The rate of land assessed for the year 1989, on the face of record, is lower than the rate assessed for the land situated in river bed Tindey's case for the year 1976 at Rs.35,000/- per bigha. It was also considered by the Ld. ADJ, Delhi in the case of Sri Ram (Supra) that even the land situate in river bed is likely to appreciate with passage of time as the same can be cultivated for some parts of the year and apportionately yields the income. No evidence had been led to show that the prices of land had remained stagnant, therefore, the land in the case of Sri Ram (Supra) can not be differently classified from the land involved in earlier award (Tindey's case). The Ld. ADJ, Delhi in the case of Sri Ram (Supra) considered next question as to what is the fair value of the land on the date of notification u/s 4 of the LA Act i.e. 23.06.1989. The Ld. ADJ, Delhi relied upon the judgment passed in Tindey's case wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi allowed an escalation @ 12% per annum considering the judgments passed in Rameshwar Solanki & Anr. Vs UOI & Anr. 57 (1995) DLT 40 & Prakash Chand Kashyap Vs UOI AIR 1988 Delhi 166. Therefore, the Ld. ADJ, Delhi in the case of Sri Ram (Supra) fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.89,600/- per bigha by allowing escalation at 12% per annum from 31.05.1976 till 10.06.1989.
19 Ex.P-14 is the judgment dt. 18.10.2006 passed by the Ld. ADJ, Delhi in LAC No.1/03 titled Sh.Bed Ram Vs UOI & DDA wherein the land situate in village Kilokari was acquired vide the notification dt. 23.06.1989 issued u/s 4 of the LA Act which was followed by declaration u/s 6 of the LA Act on 19.06.1992. The LAC assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.27,334/- per bigha after discounting @ 15% per annum on the minimum price of Rs.1.5 lacs per acre relying upon the policy of Delhi Administration as per letter dt. 03.05.1990. Dissatisfied by the land rates assessed by the LAC, the petitioner therein preferred reference u/s 18 of the LA Act. The petitioner therein relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the Ld. ADJs, Delhi pertaining to the acquired land situate in village Jasola & Bhalolpur, Khadar, Delhi, sale deeds of the lands situate in village Kilokari and awards pertaining to acquisition of lands situate in village Jaitpur, Delhi. The Ld. ADJ, Delhi, while taking into consideration the potential & nature of the acquired land being in river bed on forward bund therein also referred his judgments dt. 25.09.2006 in LAC No.13/04 titled Sri Ram Vs UOI, LAC No.18/05 titled Attar Singh Vs UOI and LAC No.19/05 titled Bed Ram Vs UOI decided on 26.09.2006 pertaining to the village Khizrabad, Delhi acquired vide award no.18/1992-93 involving the date of notification u/s 4 dt. 23.06.1989 wherein the market value of the land situate in Khizrabad was assessed at Rs.89,600/- per bigha as on 23.06.1989. In view of the above facts & circumstances and also the judgments, the Ld. ADJ, Delhi in Bed Ram's case (Supra) held that the land under acquisition therein is also located in forward bund in river bed and appeared to be similarly situated as in the case of land acquired in village Khizrabad. Considering the location of village Kilokari, the Ld. ADJ, Delhi further held that there is no reason to assume that rate of land in village Kilokari would be less than in village Khizrabad and there appars to be no reason as to why the rate of land assessed in award no.19/1992-93 involing the same date of notification in village Khizrabad may not be adopted in Bed Ram's case, therefore, the Ld. ADJ, Delhi assessed the market value of the land situate in Kilokari @ Rs.89,600/- per bigha as on 23.06.1989.
20 In view of the aforesaid documents, awards and judgments relied upon by the petitioners on the aspect whether the petitioners herein have been paid less amount of compensation than the actual market value, I would prefer to rely upon the judgment dt. 24.08.2001 passed by the Hon'ble DB of the High Court of Delhi in RFA No.338/1994 titled Sri Rattan Lal & Ors Vs UOI wherein the land situate in Dallupura, Delhi was acquired vide the two notifications issued u/s 4 of the LA Act on 17.11.1980 & 24.11.1981. The LAC offered an amount of compensation to the claimants @ Rs.12,500/- per bigha. Another notification dt. 24.11.1981 was issued u/s 4 of the LA Act notifying more land situate in village Dallupura for being acquired, the LAC assessed the market rate of land @ Rs.12,000/- per bigha. Feeling aggrieved with the amount of compensation, the claimants sought references. The reference courts answered the references by separate awards. In one set of cases, the reference court held the claimants entitled to compensation @ Rs.13,500/- per bigha with respect to the land which was acquired through notification dt. 17.11.1980. In the remaining cases, the land was acquired through the same notification dt. 17.11.1980, the reference courts enhanced the amount of compensation holding the fair market value to be Rs.76,550/-per bigha. Only one case in which the land was acquired through second notification dt. 24.11.1981, the reference court answered the reference holding the claimants entitled to compensation also @ Rs.76,550/- per bigha. The Hon'ble DB of the High Court of Delhi observed that three villages i.e. Dallupura, Kondli & Gharoli fall in a straight line in close proximity to each other touching the boundary of one village with other. The claimants in the case of Sh.Rattan Lal (Supra) based their entire case for further enhancement in compensation on a judgment in RFA No.601/92 titled Anil Kumar Sharma & Ors Vs UOI 85 (2000) DLT 825 wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held the fair market value of land situate in village Kondli to be @ Rs.345/- per sq. yard as on 17.11.1980 and 25.02.1981. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rattan Lal's case, referring the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bhaq Singh & Ors Vs Union Territory of Chandigarh AIR 1995 SC 1576, held that paying less amount of compensation to the claimants than the actual market value and allowing it to some other claimants would be discriminatory, therefore, the claimants in the case of Rattan Lal (Supra) were held entitled to compensation @ Rs.345/- per sq. yard besides statutory benefits.
21 Keeping in view of the above facts & circumstances and also the judgments relied upon by the petitioners and the award no.13/1992-93 relied upon by the respondents herein, let us examine whether the petitioners herein are entitled to enhancement in compensation of the acquired land. In similar reference i.e. LAC No.100/1/06 titled Mansa Ram & Ors Vs UOI & DDA, Sh.Rishi Pal Singh S/o Sri Ram, one of the petitioners therein was examined as PW1. PW1 therein, during his cross-examination, deposed that after 1960, the land surrounding Garhi Mandu village falls under Yamuna River bed and after 1960, the S.M.Bundh was constructed and therefore, the land in the village Garhi Mandu, Delhi falls in the river bed. The Yamuna Vihar Colony is adjacent to the said river bed and not behind the river bed. In the year 1989, the petitioners used to cultivate Jawar, Bajara, wheat and also grow vegetables. The petitioners used to survive on the agricultural activities in the said land and they are not selling any produce from these lands. The land in question was only put to agricultural activities. Seelam pur is about two and a half kms away from the land in question. G.T.Road passes through Seelampur, Delhi. G.T.Road is about half furlong away from the land in question. G.T.Road is less than 2 kms far from the acquired land. In Mansa Ram's case (Supra), PW1 admitted that no commercial & industrial activities are being carried out in his village. There was no instance of sale transaction of any land in his village in the year 1989. Large number of commercial activities are going on in Yamuna Vihar and Seelampur, Delhi. PW1 therein further deposed that at the time of taking possession of the said land on 25.01.2000, some portion of the acquired land was lying vacant since crops had already been harvested. The suggestion was denied by PW1 therein that village Kondli is about 8-10 kms from the acquired land of Garhi Mandu, Delhi but clarified that villages Kondli, Gharauli, Chilla Saroda Bangar are about 4-4.5 kms away from the acquired land. The Geeta colony and Jhil Khurenja are about 2-2.5 kms away from the acquired land of Garhi Mandu. Village Kilokari is about 7-8 kms away from the acquired land of village Garhi Mandu.
22 The counsel for the petitioners herein has also filed and relied upon the certified copy of the evidence of Sh.T.S.Joshi, Halka Patwari of village Garhi Mendu, Delhi recorded in this reference court on 21.02.2007 in the reference u/s 18 of the LA Act vide LAC No.94/1/06 titled Richa Ram Vs UOI & DDA as Ex.P-15. In Ex.P-15, the Halka Patwari of village Garhi Mendu who brought the summoned record i.e. Aks-Sizra of village Garhi Mandu, Delhi was examined as PW2. PW2 therein deposed that the land in question was an agricultural land at the time of notification u/sec. 4 of the LA Act and upto the pronouncement of the award No.13/1992-93 dt. 19.06.1992. PW2 further deposed that the land under acquisition was cultivated regularly. The distance from the land in question to the Yamuna Vihar Colony is about one and a half kms. The land of village Ghonda Gujran Khadar is adjacent to the land of village Garhi Mandu, Delhi. PW2 also deposed that at the time of taking possession of the land which is mentioned in Ex.PW1/3 that Kanungo, Sh.Sukhpal Singh was present at the time of taking possession of the land in question. During cross examination, PW2 admitted that the land in the village Yamuna Vihar is beyond S M Bundh which is between the village Garhi Mandu, Delhi and Ghonda Gujran Khadar, Delhi. The S.M.Bundh passes through the village Ghonda Gujran khadar, Delhi. The land falling in western side of S.M.Bundh is in the river bed but PW2 could not specifically say that what the distance between Garhi Mandu, Delhi and Geeta Colony, Delhi. However, PW2 voluntarily deposed that the distance between Garhi Mandu, Delhi and Bhajan pura is about 1.5 to 2 kms. PW2 further admitted that on the basis of record Ex.PW1/2, the land in question was under cultivation. PW2 also deposed that he has issued the khasra Girdawari Ex.PW1/2 and it bears his signatures. Whereas, the respondents therein only relied upon the award no.13/1992-93 Ex.R-1. The LAC while assessing the market value of the land in question has mentioned in his award vide Ex.R-1 that incidentally no sale transaction or award of similar or identical nature took place on or before the date of notification u/s 4 on 23.06.1989. Moreover, as mentioned by the LAC in his award, no evidence has been filed by any person which could be considered as guiding factor for assessing the true and fair market value of land under question. The LAC while assessing the market value of the land in question had not considered that the surrounding colonies i.e. Yamuna Vihar, Geeta Colony, Bhajanpura, etc. were already developed prior to the notification u/s 4 of the LA Act of the land in question. Therefore, the LAC, without considering the potential, nature & location of the acquired land surrounded by the developed colonies, had only taken into consideration the fixation of minimum price of agricultural land for payment of compensation as per Delhi Administration vide order dt. 03.05.1990. Vide the said order dt. 03.05.1990, the minimum amount of compensation was fixed for land situated in the river bed at Rs.1.5 lacs per acre and on the basis of the said minimum price fixed, the LAC fixed the market value of the land at Rs.27,344/- per bigha. 23 Now, the relevant question herein is whether the acquired land situate in village Garhi Mendu, Delhi as on 23.06.1989 u/s 4 of the LA Act could be considered the similarly situated land as in the cases of the villages Khizrabad, Kilokari, Chak Chilla which were acquired vide the same notifications dt. 23.06.1989 followed by declarations U/s 6 of the LA Act on 22.06.1990 for Planned Development of Delhi viz. Channalisation of river Yamuna. The market value of the land had been assessed in Tindey's case considering the location of the acquired land in the river bed. It is pertinent to mention here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi have held in catena of judgments that same rate of compensation should be awarded to the claimants for similarly situated land, same date of notification and same purpose of acquisition of the land. In this context, I would rely upon some judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. In Nand Ram & Ors Vs State of Haryana JT 1988 (4) SC 260, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the state cannot refuse to pay in respect of lands acquired under the same notification, compensation awarded to the land owners whose similarly situated lands had been acquired under the same notification for the same purpose by the notification of the same date. In Krapa Rangiah Vs Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (1982) 2 SCC 374, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the area being comparable, the situation also being the same and all the plots having been acquired under the selfsame notification for Housing Scheme it seems to us proper that the same rate of compensation should be awarded to the claimant herein as was awarded by the High Court in Appeal No.50 of 1970. The Hon'ble Supreme Court enhanced the compensation granted to the claimant by Rs. 2 per sq. yard. with consequential increase in solatium and interest. In Mangtoo @ Mangoo Vs UOI & Ors 78 (1999) DLT 723 (DB), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that as observed by the High Court in Ram Lal's case in RFA No.230/83 when two revenue estates of village are contiguous to each other, there is no reason that the land in one village should not have the same market value as the market value of land in the other village. It was further held that since, similarly situated appellants have been awarded compensation @ Rs.8,000/- per bigha why this appellant (Mangtoo) be treated differently. In Harish Narain Singhani & Anr. Vs State 78 (1999) DLT 726, it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that there is no reason why the appellants should have been denied the benefit of payment of the market value so determined. To deny this benefits to the appellants would be tantamount to permitting the state Government to acquire the land of the appellants on payment of less than the true market value. 24 In the present reference, the LAC in his award no.13/1992-93 has merely applied the rates on the basis of policy of Govt. of Delhi applicable to the land situate in forward bund in river bed and in the absence of any specific evidence led by the respondents to establish that the land in the present case is distinguishable from the land involved in the earlier awards which were also situate in river bed as referred in Tindey's case, therefore, it would not be appropriate to differently assess the same at the lower rates of Rs.27,344/- per bigha as assessed by the LAC. The rate of land assessed by the LAC for the year 1989 is lower than the rate assessed for the land situated in river bed Tindey's case for the year 1976 at Rs.35,000/- per bigha and also fixed by the Ld. ADJ, Delhi in the cases of Sri Ram and Bed Ram (Supra) for the acquired lands being in river bed. Further, no evidence has been led to prove on record that the prices of lands remained stagnant, therefore, the land in the case in hand can not be differently classified from the land involved in the aforesaid earlier awards i.e. Tindey , Sri Ram & Bed Ram's cases. In Tindey's case, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi allowed an escalation @ 12% per annum referring the judgments passed in Rameshwar Solanki & Anr. Vs UOI & Anr. 57 (1995) DLT 40 & Prakash Chand Kashyap Vs UOI AIR 1988 Delhi 166. Therefore, my decision is also supported with the aforesaid judgments passed in Tindey, Sri Ram & Bed Ram's cases. The lands situate in villages Khizrabad & Kilokari, Delhi were acquired as on the date of notifications u/s 4 of the LA Act dt. 23.06.1989 and the market value was rounded off and fixed at Rs.89,600/- per bigha by allowing an escalation at 12% per annum from 31.05.1976 to 10.06.1989. As per the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in cases where an increase of 12% per annum is given till the date of notification u/s 4 of the LA Act, if 12% escalation price per annum of Rs.35,000/- as fixed in Tindey's case by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi is calculated from 10.05.1976 to 23.06.1989, the market value of the land in question as on the date of notification i.e. 23.06.1989 should have been @ Rs.90,102/-per bigha. Thus, the market value of the land in question is fixed at Rs.90,102/- per bigha. Since the reference u/s 30-31 of the LA Act has already been answered in favour of the petitioner herein in LAC No.26/2/06 titled UOI Vs Rattan Singh, therefore, the LRs of the deceased petitioner are entitled to receive the enhanced compensation in respect of the land in question as awarded in this reference. The counsel for the petitioners in support of his case for calculation of interest u/s 34 has also relied upon the judgment dt. 22.12.2005 passed by the Ld. ADJ, Delhi in the case titled Sh.Partap Singh through LRs Vs UOI & Ors, therefore, the petitioners are also entitled to interest u/s 34 of the Act if the LAC has not given on the awarded amount as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunder Vs UOI. These issues are answered accordingly.
RELIEF 25 In view of my findings on the above issues, the market value of the land of the petitioner acquired U/sec. 4 of the LA Act i.e. on 23.06.1989 is fixed @ Rs.90,102/- per bigha and the LRs of the petitioner/ Smt.Chawli Devi are entitled to enhancement in compensation as per their shares, details of which is mentioned in the statement u/sec.19 of the LA Act. Besides it, the LRs of late Smt.Chawli Devi will be entitled to get additional amount u/sec. 23 (1A) of LA Act @ 12% per annum on the market value from the date of notification u/sec. 4 of the LA Act till the date of award or dispossession, whichever is earlier. The LRs of late Smt.Chawli Devi will also get solatium u/sec. 23 (2) of LA Act @ 30% on the enhanced amount of compensation and interest u/sec. 28 of LA Act @ 9% per annum for the first year from the date of dispossession and @ 15% per annum on the difference between the enhanced compensation awarded by this court and the compensation awarded by the LAC for the subsequent period till the payment. The LRs of late Smt.Chawli Devi are further entitled to interest on solatium and additional amount in terms of judgment of Hon'ble Apex court titled Sunder Vs UOI reported in DLT 2001 (SC) 569. The LRs of late Smt.Chawli Devi shall also be entitled to interest u/s 34 on solatium and additional amount U/s 23 (1-A) @ 12% per annum if the LAC has not given on the awarded amount as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunder Vs UOI. However, the LRs of the petitioner, late Smt.Chawli Devi shall not be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount from 25.11.2002 to 07.04.2006 except the period of 90 days prescribed for filing the LRs application. This reference is answered accordingly.
A copy of this award be sent to the concerned LAC to make the payment of the enhanced amount of compensation to the LRs of late Smt.Chawli Devi within three months from today. While making the calculations due regard shall be made to deduct the amount initially arrived at by the LAC to avoid any duplication. There shall be no order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. The file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court ( YASHWANT KUMAR )
on 31.05.2007 ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE (LAC)
DELHI
LAC No. 334/1/06
31.05.2007 (At 04.00 p.m.)
Present- Counsel for the parties
The counsel for the LRs of the petitioner has filed an application u/s 151 CPC. Let it be taken on record.
Vide separate award dictated and announced in the open court, this reference is answered accordingly.
A copy of this award be sent to the concerned LAC to make the payment of the enhanced amount of compensation to the LRs of late Smt.Chawli Devi within three months from today. While making the calculations due regard shall be made to deduct the amount initially arrived at by the LAC to avoid any duplication. There shall be no order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. The file be consigned to Record Room.
( YASHWANT KUMAR ) ADJ/LAC/DELHI/31.05.2007