Delhi District Court
: 1: Lac 93A/06 - Sarup Singh Etc. vs . Uoi on 29 August, 2008
: 1: LAC 93A/06 - Sarup Singh etc. Vs. UOI
THE COURT OF SHRI SANJAY KUMAR,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (LAC),
ROOM NO. 230, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
LAC No.93-A/2006
Village : Dhool Siras
Award No. : 27/2002-03
Date of Notification U/s 4 : 13-12-2000
1. Shri Sarup Singh,
2. Shri Anup Singh
Both sons of late Sh. Jug Lal
3. Shri Naresh Kumar
4. Shri Rajesh Kumar
Both sons of late Sh. Dalel Singh
5. Shri Rakesh Kumar
6. Shri Dinesh
Both sons of late Sh. Hans Raj
7. Prince
8. Shri Mohit
Both monor sons of
late Sh. Suresh Kr.
Through their mother and
natural guardian Smt. Kamlesh
All R/o of Village Dhool Siras,
New Delhi. ....Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Through Land Acquisition Collector
District South West,
Kapashera, New Delhi.
2. Delhi Development Authority,
Through its Vice Chairman,
Vikas Sadan, INA Market,
New Delhi. ...Respondents
Date of Institution : 10-02-2006
Judgment reserved on : 26-08-2008
Judgment delivered on : 29-08-2008
: 2: LAC 93A/06 - Sarup Singh etc. Vs. UOI
JUDGMENT:
1. The Government of NCT of Delhi acquired total land of 3133 Bigha 17 Biswa which was notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 vide Notification no. F.10(30)/96/L&B/LA/13417 dated 13.12.2000 also under Section 6 vide notification no. F.10(30)/96/L&B/LA/14062 dated 07.12.2001. The land was also notified under Section 17(1) vide notification no. F.10(30)/96/L&B/LA/19798-811 dated 15.03.2002. The land is required to be taken by the Government at the public expenses for a public purpose namely "Dwarka Phase II", Delhi for Planned Development of Delhi.
2. The Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as "the Collector") passed the Award no. 27/2002-2003 dated 24.10.2002 u/s 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The Collector determined the market value of the land under acquisition @ Rs. 13.82 lacs per acre in Block A and @ Rs. 12.32 lacs per acre in Block B in addition to other statutory benefits as per provisions of the Act.
3. According to Section 19 Statement filed by the Collector, the share and measurement of land of petitioners is as follows :
Name of the petitioners Khasra no. Total Area Share (Bigha Biswa) Prince Kumar 10//16/1 3-8 1/24 each of Prince Kr. & Mohit Kumar 25 4-14 Mohit Kr.
Rakesh Kumar 11/19/2 2-17
1/8 each of
Denish Kumar 20 4-16 Rakesh Kr. &
21 4-16 Dinesh Kr.
Sarup Singh
22/1 3-1 1/4 each of
Anup Singh
Sarup Singh &
Naresh Kumar 16/1 4-8 Anup Singh
Rajesh Kumar 2 4-11 1/12 each of
26 0-9 Naresh Kr. &
Rajesh Kr.
17/5/2 1-8
: 3: LAC 93A/06 - Sarup Singh etc. Vs. UOI
4. The petitioners did not raise objection to the statement u/s 19 of the Act to the extent of Khasra numbers and measurement of the acquired land.
5. The petitioners did not accept the market value determined by the LAC and preferred reference petition u/s 18 of the Act. The petitioners have taken several grounds against the award of the Collector inter alia mentioned hereinafter.
6. The petitioner alleged that the Collector failed to consider that the land in acquisition is yielding/producing three/four crops per year and gives a handsome income to the petitioner. The Collector also ignored the market price prevailing in this village and adjoining villages even prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act also ignored the sale transactions taken place in the adjoining villages, such as Pochanpur etc.
7. The Collector also ignored the facts that the land under reference had great potential value as it was situated in one of the best localities of New Delhi surrounded by fully developed residential and commercial sites i.e. Indira Gandhi International Airport, Indian Oil Depot and Delhi Rewari Line towards the East, well developed colonies of Dwarka Phase I (Papankalan) towards the West and North and Farm house along the Kapashera-Najafgarh road towards the South, which has considerably increased the market value of the land.
: 4: LAC 93A/06 - Sarup Singh etc. Vs. UOI
8. The Collector also erred in not considering the facts that the petitioner's land was availing all the amenities and facilities of life, like, metalled road, electricity, regular bus services, transport, nearness to school, hospital, market, petrol pump prior to the date of notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioner further alleged that market value of the land under reference was not less than Rs. 1 crore per acre if sold in the open market on the date of notification u/s 4 of the Act. The Collector also failed to consider the damage sustained by the petitioner by reason of taking of standing crops, tube wells, drains, boarings, kothas, water tank etc. and damage by changing of Petitioner's residence and place of business on account of compulsory acquisition of land.
9. It is prayed that compensation of the land of the petitioner be held at the rate of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- per acre, Rs. 50,000/- per acre for the standing crops, Rs. 2,00,000/- per tube well, Rs. 1,50,000/- per boaring along with all other statutory benefits.
10. Union of India contested the claim and taken the preliminary objection that Delhi Land Reforms Act is applicable and petition is time barred. The land under acquisition is not surrounded by any developed or undeveloped colony and used for only agricultural purposes. There were no trees, well or tube well at the time of publication of notification u/s 4 of the Act. On merits, all the averments are denied. It is stated that petitioners are not entitled to enhancement of compensation and petition is liable to be dismissed.
: 5: LAC 93A/06 - Sarup Singh etc. Vs. UOI
11. The Delhi Development Authority has been impleaded as respondent no.2 as per directions of Supreme Court. Delhi Development Authority also filed the written statement. The preliminary objection taken by DDA is that the determination of market value by the Collector includes the consideration of the sale deeds of adjoining village, amenities and facilities and other circumstances and compensation is adequate, sufficient, just and legal. It is stated that petitioners are not entitled for grant of enhancement of compensation and petition is liable to be dismissed.
12. On the pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 03-11-2006 my Ld. Predecessor framed the following issues :-
1 What is the market value of the land in reference? (OPP) 2 Whether the Petitioner is entitled to any enhancement if any and to what extent ? (OPP).
3 Relief ?
13. The petitioners examined Shri Dharampal Singh as PW-1, PW- 2 Shri Subhash Chand Chawla, PW-3 Shri Surender Kumar, PW-4 Shri Suraj Bhan, PW-5 Shri Ombir, PW-6 Shri Naubat Singh and PW-7 Shri Naresh Kumar, one of the petitioners.
14. On the other hand, Respondent UOI tendered certified copies of Sale Deeds Exb. R-1 to R-18 in the leading case titled "Ranbir Sharma Versus UOI" bearing "LAC NO. 262-A/2006" represented by Shri Amit Maan, Counsel. The Respondent, Delhi Development Authority did not lead any evidence, however adopted the same evidence : 6: LAC 93A/06 - Sarup Singh etc. Vs. UOI led by Union of India.
15. I have heard oral arguments of both the counsel of parties and also perused the written arguments filed in the above mentioned leading case. I have gone through the record as well. My findings on the aforesaid issues are as follows:-
Issues No. 1 & 2
16. Counsel for petitioners contended that the Collector while fixing the market value of the acquired land fixed @ Rs.13.82 lacs per acre on the basis of minimum rates fixed by the Government for agricultural land as on 01-04-2000. The Collector erred in considering acquired land as agricultural land and lost the sight of MCD notification dated 24-10-1994 by virtue of which the village Bharthal declared as urban village. He further pointed out that the Collector did not consider the change of land use under acquisition as per Master Plan which was modified on 16-10-2000 by virtue of which land use was changed from agricultural to residential, commercial and industrial etc.
17. Counsel for petitioners contended that acquired land is the part of Vasant Vihar Tehsil, District South West. According to notification dated 16-04-1999 as per circular the residential schedule shows the rate of Rs. 11,500/- per sq. meter and commercial rate of Rs.24,150/- per sq. meter. The pre determined rate for Dwarka Phase I land allotted and auctioned by DDA shows rates of Rs.54,450/- per sq. meter and in the year 2006 plot of land in Dwarka Phase I sold for Rs.1,76,020/- per sq. meter.
: 7: LAC 93A/06 - Sarup Singh etc. Vs. UOI
18. Counsel for petitioners contented that Collector should have considered urbanization in the locality of the acquired land of the village and development taken place in the surrounding area and applied the method of determining the market value of the land as highlighted herein above. The Collector did not consider the sale deeds filed by the villagers in respect of Village Pochanpur and Samalkha. According to these sale deeds, total land measuring 42 Bigha 10 Biswa was sold for Rs. 16 crores.
19. Counsel for petitioners contended that while fixing the market value of the land, the potentiality of the land in view of above highlighted facts and documentary proof may be taken into consideration. It has to be visualized that at the time of notification in the year 2000 what future would be unfolded in the year 2008 while deciding reference under Section 18 of the Act. There is no doubt that market value may be determined by the Court as on 13-12-2000 but the reality and potentiality may be considered. It is relevant to consider that Delhi has already been urbanized and land on other other sides of the border in Haryana District Gurgaon has been developed in colonies such as DLF, Palam Vihar, Sushant Lok, various sectors under Haryana Urban Development Authority up to Manesar and land between the said colonies and the land of the petitioners were available for the colonization.
20. Counsel for petitioners contended that according to Master Plan, there is provision for use of land contrary to the Master Plan. The land falling under agricultural/rural use zone cannot be used for residential, commercial and institutional use. However after various : 8: LAC 93A/06 - Sarup Singh etc. Vs. UOI notifications which are proved on record in respect of Master Plan and change of land use of the petitioners from agricultural to residential, commercial etc. the market value of the land of the petitioners now falls as of urban land. Therefore, market value may be determined as the value of urban land. The principle of determination of market value of urban land may be applied and development cost ranging from 1/3rd to 1/5 th may be deducted.
21. Counsel for petitioners further contented that the sale deeds proved by Union of India Exb. R-1 to R-18 are inadmissible according to Section 35 of Indian Stamp Act. These sale deeds cannot be compared with the sale deeds proved by the petitioners because village Salahapur, Bijwasan and Rajokari are parts of green belt. The sale deeds of village Dhool Siras filed by UOI are pertaining to the portion of the land which is used only for agricultural purpose and falls under rural zone as per Master Plan because vide notification dated 16-10-2000 the land use mentioned in the sale deeds filed by Union of India of village Dhool Siras was not changed. He further submitted that petitioners proved genuine sale deeds, all notifications of Government, documentary proof of auctions as well as cost of development and other criteria for fixing the market value of the acquired land of the petitioners.
22. Counsel for petitioners relied on following judgments :
1. Mangtoo @ Mango Vs. UOI and others 78 (1999) DLT 723 DB
2. Chajju Vs. UOI 80 (1999) 129 DB
3. Rishal Singh and others Vs. UOI and another 2006 (89) DRJ 527 DB
4. Ramanand (since deceased through LRs) Vs. UOI and another 2002 (65) DRJ
5. Adusumilli Gopal Krishna Vs. Special Deputy Collector (Land : 9: LAC 93A/06 - Sarup Singh etc. Vs. UOI Acquisition) AIR 1980 SC 1870
6. DDA Vs. Land Acquisition Collector and others 2006 V AD (Delhi) 239
7. Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (D) by Lrs Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 2005 SC 2214
8. Kusturi and others Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2003 SC 202
9. Pannalal Khosh and others Vs. Land Acquisition Collector and others AIR 2004 SC 1179
10.Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and others Vs. Executive Engineer and another AIR 2001 SC 2424
11.The Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer, Nalgonda (AP) Vs. Mori Setty Satya Narayana and others Vol 24 2002 (1) SC AILACC
12.State of Maharashtra and another Vs. Abdul Sattar and others AIR 1995 Bombay 85
13.MCD Vs. Naresh Kumar 1997 (41) DRJ SC
23. Counsel for Union of India submitted that the acquired land of the petitioners is agricultural land and according to testimony of petitioners, the land remained as agricultural land till its acquisition. He submitted that the various notifications of the Government as highlighted by the Counsel for petitioners do not change the nature and use of the land of the petitioners which remained as agricultural land. He further submitted that Government applied the formula for fixing the minimum rates of agricultural land and issued rates after considering the escalation of the market price may be in a year, two years or five years.
24. Counsel for Union of India submitted that the sale deeds relied upon by the counsel for petitioners are of very higher side and show more than 100 per cent escalation which cannot be the basis for determining the market value. He further submitted that Union of India produced certified copies of sale deeds Exb. R-1 to R-18 including sale : 10: LAC 93A/06 - Sarup Singh etc. Vs. UOI deeds of village Dhool Siras and other adjoining villages which show the correct picture of market price of sale of agricultural land at the time of acquisition of land. He further submitted that Section 35 has no role to play. The certified copies of sale deeds relied upon by Union of India are admissible and proved piece of evidence according to Section 51 A of Land Acquisition Act. He relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court titled as Satpal & Ors. Vs. Union of India AIR 1997 SC 3882.
25. Counsel for Union of India submitted that there is no effect of notifications issued by Delhi Development Authority and Municipal Corporation of Delhi, especially notification of urbanization of Village u/s 507 of DMC Act. He further submitted that the potentiality of land where building can be raised may be considered but should be according to the principle laid down by Supreme Court in the judgment of P. Ram Reddy & Ors. Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad (1995) 2 Supreme Court Cases 305. He relied upon the judgment of Shakuntalabai and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra (1996) 2 Supreme Court Cases 152. He further submitted that Land Acquisition Collector has already awarded compensation on the higher side which does not require any interference by the court.
26. Counsel for Union of India relied on the following judgments :-
(1)Smt. Tribeni Devi & Ors. Vs. The Collector, Ranchi AIR 1972 Supreme Court 1417.
(2)Adussumilli Gopalkrishna Versus Spl. Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1870.
(3)Suresh Kumar Versus Town Improvement Trust, Bhopal : 11: LAC 93A/06 - Sarup Singh etc. Vs. UOI AIR 1989 Supreme Court 1222 (4)Spl. Tehsildar Land Acquisition Vishakhapatnam Vs. Smt. A. Mangala Gowri AIR 1992 Supreme Court 666 (5)Jawajee Nagnatham Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad, AP and others. (1994) 4 Supreme Court Cases 595 (6)P. Ram Reddy and others Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (1995) 2 Supreme Court Cases 305 (7)Agriculture Produce Market Committee Vs. Land Acquisition Officer and Asstt. Commissioner & Anr. Etc. JT 1996 (9) S.C. 432 (8)Shakuntalabai and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra (1996) 2 Supreme Court Cases 152 (9)Special Dy. Collector and another etc. Vs. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and others AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2625 (10)Satpal & Ors. Vs. Union of India AIR 1997 Supreme Court 3882 (11)Kanwar Singh & Ors Vs. Union of India VIII (1998) SLT 515 (12)Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors. Versus Gurpratap Singh & Ors. 113 (2004) Delhi Law Times 690 (DB)
27. I have given thoughtful consideration to the respective oral submissions of both the counsel and perused the voluminous record. Before examining the issue of determination of market value of the acquired land, firstly I would like to refer to relevant provisions of Land Acquisition Act which are Section 23 and 24 which are reproduced hereunder :-
: 12: LAC 93A/06 - Sarup Singh etc. Vs. UOI Section 23. Matters to be considered in determining compensation -
(1) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration----
first, the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section (1). secondly, the damage sustained by the person interested, by reason of the taking of any standing crops or trees which may be on the land at the time of the Collector's taking possession thereof;
thirdly, the damage (if any), sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of severing such land from his other land; fourthly, the damage (if any), sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriosuly affecting his other property, movable or immovable, in any other manner, or his earnings;
fifthly, if, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Collector, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such change; and sixthly, the damage (if any), bona fide resulting from diminution of the profits of the land between the time of the publication of the declaration under Section 6 and the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land. (1A)............................................................... (2)................................................................. Section 24. Matters to be neglected in determining compensation. -- But the Court shall take into consideration----
first, the degree of urgency which has led to the acquisition; secondly, any disinclination of the person interested to part with the land acquired;
thirdly, any damage sustained by him which, if caused by a private person, would not render such person liable to a suit;
: 13: LAC 93A/06 - Sarup Singh etc. Vs. UOI fourthly, any damage which is likely to be caused to the land
acquired, after the date of the publication of the declaration under section 6, by or in consequence of the use to which it will be put;
fifthly, any increase to the value of the land acquired likely to accrue from the use to which it will be put when acquired; sixthly, any increase to the value of the other land of the person interested likely to accrue from the use to which the land acquired will be put;
seventhly, any outlay or improvements on, or disposal of, the land acquired commenced, made or effected without the sanction of the Collector after the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4 sub-section 1;
eighthly, any increase to the value of the the land on account of its being part to any use which is forbidden by land or opposed to public policy.
28. The determination of market value of acquired land shall be keeping in view the settled principles of law in evaluating market value in compulsory acquisition on the hypothesis of a willing Vendor and a willing Vendee. Therefore, let us glance through the settled principles of law in this regard.
29. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Narayan Gajapati Raju Vs. Revenue Divisional officer, AIR 1939 PC 98 held that :
"compensation for compulsory acquisition governed by Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is the market value of the land at the date of publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act "what a willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from the willing purchaser".
: 14: LAC 93A/06 - Sarup Singh etc. Vs. UOI
30. The function of the Court in awarding compensation under the Act is to ascertain the market value of the land at the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and the evaluation may be as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Adinarayana Setty AIR 1959 SC 429 where the Supreme Court laid down the following principles :
"(1) Opinion of experts; (2) The price paid within a reasonable time in bona fide transactions of purchase of the land acquired or the land adjacent to the acquired land and possessing similar advantages; (3) Number of years of purchase of the actual or immediately perspective profits of the land acquired."
31. In Tribeni Devi Vs. Collector of Ranchi AIR 1972 SC 1417, the Supreme Court held that :
"for determining compensation payable to the owner of the land, the market value is to be determined by reference to the price which may be reasonable obtained from willing purchasers but since it may not be possible to ascertain this with any amount of precision the authority charged with the duty to award compensation is bound to make an estimate judged by an objective standard. While reiterating the three tests laid down in S.L.A. Officer's case, it was further emphasized that these methods, however, do not preclude the Court from taking any other special circumstances into consideration, the requirement being always to arrive at as nearly as possible at an estimate of the market value. In arriving at a reasonable correct market value it may be necessary to take even two or all these methods into account inasmuch as the exact evaluation is not always possible as no two lands may be the same either in respect of the situation or the extent or potentiality nor is it possible in all cases to have reliable material from which the valuation can be accurately determined.
: 15: LAC 93A/06 - Sarup Singh etc. Vs. UOI
32. In P. Ram Reddy and Others Versus Land Acquisition Officer (1995) 2 SCC 305, the Supreme Court held that :
"An acquired land could be regarded as that which has a building potentiality, if such land although was used on the relevant date envisaged under Section 4(1) of the LA Act for agricultural or horticultural or other like purposes or was on that date even barren or waste, had the possibility of being used immediately or in the near future as land for putting up residential, commercial, industrial or other buildings. However, the fact that the acquired land had been acquired for building purposes, cannot be sufficient circumstance to regard it as a land with building potentiality, in that, under clause (4) of Section 24 of the LA Act that any increase to the value of land likely to accrue from the use to which it will be put when acquired, is required to be excluded. Therefore, wherever, there is a possibility of the acquired land not used for building purposes on the relevant date envisaged under Section 4 (1) of the LA Act, of being used for putting up buildings either immediately or in the near future but not in the distant future, then such acquired land would be regarded as that which has a building potentiality. Even so, when can it be said that there is the possibility of the acquired land being used in the immediate or near future for putting up buildings, would be the real question. Such possibility of user of the acquired land for building purposes can never be wholly a matter of conjecture or surmise or guess. On the other hand, it should be a matter of inference to be drawn based on appreciation of material placed on record to establish such possibility. Material so placed on record or made available must necessarily relate to the matters such as :
: 16: LAC 93A/06 - Sarup Singh etc. Vs. UOI
(i) the situation of the acquired land vis-a-vis the city or the town or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other kind of importance or because of its explosive population;
(ii)the suitability of the acquired land for putting up the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial, as the case may be;
(iii)possibility of obtaining water and electric supply for occupants of buildings to be put upon that land;
(iv)absence of statutory impediments or the like for using the acquired land for building purposes;
(v)existence of highways, public roads, layouts of building plots or developed residential extensions in the vicinity or close proximity of the acquired land;
(vi)benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land which may become available to the occupiers of buildings, if built on the acquired land; and
(vii) lands around the acquired land or the acquired land itself being in demand for building purposes, to specify a few.
The material to be so placed on record or made available in respect of the said matters and the like, cannot have the needed evidentiary value for concluding that the acquired land being used for building purposes in the immediate or near future unless the same is supported by reliable documentary evidence, as far as the circumstances permit. When once a conclusion is reached that there was the : 17: LAC 93A/06 - Sarup Singh etc. Vs. UOI possibility of the acquired land being used for putting up buildings in the immediate or near future, such conclusion would be sufficient to hold that the acquired land had a building potentiality and proceed to determine its market value taking into account the increase in price attributable to such building potentiality."
33. In Shaji Kuriakose Vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. (2001) 7 SCC 650, the Supreme Court held that :
"3. It is no doubt true that courts adopt comparable sales method of valuation of land while fixing the market value of the acquired land. While fixing the market value of the acquired land, comparable sales method of valuation is preferred than other methods of valuation of land such as capitalisation of net income method or expert opinion method. Comparable sales method of valuation is preferred because it furnishes the evidence for determination of the market value of the acquired land at which a willing purchaser would pay for the acquired land if it had been sold in the open market at the time of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act. However, comparable sales method of valuation of land for fixing the market value of the acquired land is not always conclusive. There are certain factors which are required to be fulfilled and on fulfillment of those factors the compensation can be awarded, according to the value of the land reflected in the sales. The factors laid down inter alia are : (1) the sale must be a genuine transaction, (2) that the sale deed must have been executed at the time proximate to the date of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act, (3) that the land covered by the sale must be in the vicinity of the acquired land, (4) that the land covered by the sales must be similar to the acquired land, and (5) that the size of plot of the land covered by the sales be comparable to the land acquired. If all these factors are satisfied, then there is no reason why the sale value of : 18: LAC 93A/06 - Sarup Singh etc. Vs. UOI the land covered by the sales be not given for the acquired land. However, if there is a dissimilarity in regard to locality, shape, site or nature of land between land covered by sales and land acquired, it is open to the court to proportionately reduce the compensation for acquired land that what is reflected in the sales depending upon the disadvantages attached with the acquired land."
34. In Viluben Jhalejar Contractor Vs. State of Gujarat (2005) 4 SCC 789 the Supreme Court held that :
"18. One of the principles for determination of the amount of compensation for acquisition of land would be the willingness of an informed buyer to offer the price therefor. It is beyond any cavil that the price of the land which a willing and informed buyer would offer would be different in the cases where the owner is in possession and enjoyment of the property and in the cases where he is not.
19. Market value is ordinarily the price the property may fetch in the open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the special needs of a particular purchase. Where definite material is not forthcoming either in the shape of sales of similar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the date of notification under Section 4(1) or otherwise, other sale instances as well as other evidences have to be considered.
20.The amount of compensation cannot be ascertained with mathematical accuracy. A comparable instance has to be identified having regard to the proximity from time angle as well as proximity from situation angle. For determining the market value of the land under acquisition, suitable adjustment has to be made having regard to various positive and negative factors vis-a-vis the land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. The positive and negative factors are as under :
: 19: LAC 93A/06 - Sarup Singh etc. Vs. UOI Positive factors Negative factors
(i) smallness of size (i) largeness of area.
(ii) proximity to a road (ii) situation in the interior at a distance from the road.
(iii) frontage on a road (iii) narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth.
(iv) nearness to (iv) lower level requiring
developed area depressed portion to be
filled up
(v) regular shape (v) remoteness from
developed locality
(vi) level vis-a-vis land (vi) some special
under acquisition disadvantageous factors
which would deter a
purchaser
(vii) special value for an
owner of an adjoining
property to whom it
may have some very
special advantage
35. In a recent case Union of India Versus Pramod Gupta (Dead) by LRs. and others (2005) 12 Supreme Court Cases 1, the Supreme Court considered the two methods laying down the principles for determining the market value. Firstly, what a willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from the willing purchaser. Secondly, comparison of sale deeds. In the absence of any direct evidence, the Court, however, may take recourse to various other known methods. The area of land, the nature thereof, advantages and disadvantages occurring therein amongst others would be relevant factors for determining the actual market value of the land. Evidence admissible therefor inter alia would be judgments and awards passed in respect of acquisitions of lands made in the same village and/or neighbouring villages.
: 20: LAC 93A/06 - Sarup Singh etc. Vs. UOI
36. The method of determination of market value comprising of factors that acquired land is a part of Vasant Vihar District as the first basis is erroneous at the first sight. The Vasant Vihar District is comprising of fully developed locality. The Vasant Vihar land rates as proved on record are after around more than 40 years of acquisition of land and development of Vasant Vihar locality. The acquired land of petitioners cannot be compared with locality of Vasant Vihar which is 40 years ahead in development. The guess work to compare potentiality of Vasant Vihar land with acquired land of petitioners in December, 2000 is beyond comparison and contrary to the well settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court.
37. The second factor contended by the Counsel for petitioners is the auction of residential and commercial plots of Dwarka Phase I. In this regard, the demand of pre-determined rates and auction of plots by DDA after development of the colony especially pertaining to the year 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006, which are highlighted by the counsel for petitioners, cannot be considered as contrary to the well settled principle of law by the Supreme Court that the determination of the market value must be on the day of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The Supreme Court in a recent case laid down the principle on the proposition discussed herein above in respect of determination of market value of the acquired land. The judgments relate to village of Delhi state.
In the case of Ranvir Singh and another Vs. Union of India AIR 2005 Supreme Court 3467, the Supreme Court held that :
: 21: LAC 93A/06 - Sarup Singh etc. Vs. UOI "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 pays an important role.
31. The High Court did not consider any relevant criteria on the basis whereof it could come to the conclusion that the value of the freehold lands would be double of the value of the leasehold lands. The fact that in terms of the brochure the leasehold was to be a perpetual one and the ground rent payable therefor was absolutely nominal being Re. 1/- per plot per annum for the first five years and thereafter at the rate 2½ % of the total amount of the premium, which was to be enhanced only after every 30 years, was a relevant factor which should have been taken into consideration for arriving at a finding in that behalf. It is wroth noting that the terms and conditions were set out for sale by the Delhi Development Authority on behalf of the President of India of perpetual lease-hold rights in the residential plots under the Rohini Scheme.
41. Keeping in vie the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgments cannot be sustained and accordingly the same are set aside."
38. In an another case, R.P. Singh Vs. Union of India and others AIR 2005 Supreme Court 4189, the Supreme Court held that :
"12. Contention raised by the counsel for appellant that they should be paid higher compensation because the respondents were now selling the land at the rate of Rs. 25 lacs per bigha cannot be accepted. Counsel for the respondent has brought to our notice that the land is now : 22: LAC 93A/06 - Sarup Singh etc. Vs. UOI fully developed and for its development the respondents have spent a lot of money and the claimant would not be entitled to a higher price simply because after 40 years of acquisition and its development the land was being sold at a higher price. As already stated above, the market value of the land has to be determined as on the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and not as it prevails at a later date after the land has been fully developed."
39. The determination of market value of the acquired land on the basis of methods proposed by the Counsel for the petitioners are not in consonance with the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgments of Ranvir Singh and another Vs. Union of India (Supra) and R.P. Singh Vs. Union of India and others (Supra). Hence, the methods as proposed by counsel for petitioners for determining the market value of the acquired land cannot be applied.
40. The notification issued for change of land use and notification of MCD u/s 507 DMC Act shows that the Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal ceased to be agricultural and comes within the urban boundaries of Delhi State. The Master Plan and notifications of Government for land use change show that in future the land can be subjected to residential, commercial and other permissible uses. In case these notifications created potentiality of the acquired land to use for building purposes then how market value can be determined is laid down by the Supreme Court as discussed herein above.
: 23: LAC 93A/06 - Sarup Singh etc. Vs. UOI
41. In the judgment of P. Ram Reddy and ors. (supra), the Supreme Court cautiously laid down the principle according to which the relevant date envisaged u/s 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, of being used for putting up the buildings either immediately or in the near future but not in the distant future, then such acquired land would be regarded as that which has a building potentiality. Such possibility of user of the acquired land for building purposes can never be wholly a matter of conjecture or surmise or guess. The possibility of building potentiality of the land should be on the basis of documentary evidence. In the present case, the petitioners placed on record the notification dated 16.10.2000 for Dwarka Phase-II showing change of land use from rural to residential/commercial etc. Earlier notification of MCD u/s 507 of DMC Act dated 24.10.1994.
42. The demand letters or auction rates of sale of plots at Dwarka Phase-II after about 20 years of development cannot be the basis for creating hypothesis of near future building potentiality of the acquired land. It is pertinent to mention here that the present land was acquired in the year 2000 and proceedings under Land Acquisition Act completed in 2002. The last five years show as per record there is no building activity started at the acquired land, therefore, the building potentiality of the land cannot be termed as it is being used for putting up buildings either immediately or in the near future. It is a clear case of building potentiality in the distant future may be after 15 years or 20 years, therefore, the acquired land as per material on record cannot be embodied with building potentiality either immediate or near future.
: 24: LAC 93A/06 - Sarup Singh etc. Vs. UOI
43. Hence, on the basis of above discussions, as per principle laid down in P. Ram Reddy & Ors. Vs. Land Acquisition Officer (Supra) by the Supreme Court, geographical situation and potentiality of the acquired land of Villages Dhool Siras and Bharthal, it is not established that the acquired land has building potential of immediate or near future. There is no material on record to prove that even till 2007, the conceptual plan of Dwarka Phase II has started any building activity.
44. It is pertinent to mention here that the legislature in its wisdom has taken care in respect of methods proposed by the counsel for petitioners. The methods discussed herein above for determination of market value as per fully developed Vasant Vihar District locality or demand rates or auction rates proposed by DDA in respect of Dwarka Phase I. These methods are based upon the foundation of future potentiality which is prohibited by Section 24. According to Section 24 (fifthly and sixthly) the increase for future potentiality the compensation as expression of the statute is contrary to the calculations of compensation. The statute expressly enjoins to omit consideration of the future use of the land or potentialities. The Supreme Court reiterated this principle of law since the case of Narayan Gajapati Raju Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer (Supra). This principle is also being reiterated in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Brij Lal Mishra AIR 1996 SC 221.
45. Now coming to the last contention of the counsel for petitioners in respect of the sale deeds proved on record on behalf of the petitioners. Before analyzing the sale deeds or determination of market value on the basis of proved sale deeds by both the parties, it has to be : 25: LAC 93A/06 - Sarup Singh etc. Vs. UOI kept in mind the well settled principle in this regard settled by Supreme Court. In the case of Narayan Gajapati Raju Vs. Revenue Divisional officer (Supra), principle laid down that the best method as is well known would be the amount which a willing purchaser would pay to the owner of the land. In the recent case of Union of India Versus Pramod Gupta (Dead) by LRs. and others (Supra), the principle has been reiterated.
46. The counsel for petitioners relied on the following sale deeds :
SR. NO. NAME OF VILLAGE DATE AND AMOUNT EX.
AND AREA
Pochanpur 798, 15-04-1999 PW-1/1
(2 Bigha 12 Biswa) (Rs. 32,94,000/-)
1 Pochanpur 797 15-04-1999 PW-1/2
(2 Bigha 12 Biswa) Rs. 32,94,000/-
3 Pochanpur 975, 03-05-1999 PW-1/3
(2 Bigha 8 Biswa) (Rs. 26,00,000/-)
Pochanpur 982, 05-05-1999 PW-1/4
(2 Bigha 8 Biswa) (Rs. 26,00,000/-)
Pochanpur 990, 04-05-1999 PW-1/5
(2 Bigha 4 Biswa) (Rs. 24,00,000/-)
4 Pochanpur 976, 29-04-1999 PW-1/6
(2 Bigha 1 Biswa) (Rs. 25,13,000/-)
6 Pochanpur 984, 06-05-1999 PW-1/7
(2 Bigha 8 Biswa) (Rs. 26,00,000/-)
47. The sale deeds Exb. PW-1/1 to Exb. PW-1/7 pertain to Village Pochanpur and the Vendee in all these sale deeds is one i.e. Radha Swami Satsang Beas. Hence, in totality all these sale deeds pertain to one transaction and also the approximate price comes out to Rs.60 lacs per acre.
: 26: LAC 93A/06 - Sarup Singh etc. Vs. UOI
48. On the other hand, Union of India proved the certified copies of 18 sale deeds, particulars of which are mentioned herein below :
SR. NO. NAME OF VILLAGE DATE AND AMOUNT EXHIBIT AND AREA 1 Bijwasan 15-02-1999 R-1 (04 Bigha 16 Biswa) (Rs.2,50,000/-) 2 Bijwasan 04-01-1999 R-2 (01 Bigha 08 Biswa) (Rs.1,73,560/-) 3 Bijwasan 01-11-2000 R-3 (01 Bigha 19 Biswa) (Rs.3,00,000/-) 4 Bamnoli 24-08-1998 R-4 (03 Bigha 08 Biswa) (Rs.80,000/-) 5 Dhool Siras 04-01-1999 R-5 (12 Bigha 1 Biswa) (Rs.5,00,000/-) 6 Dhool Siras 04-01-1999 R-6 (05 Bigha 3 Biswa) (Rs.5,00,000/-) 7 Dhool Siras 04-01-1999 R-7 (07 Bigha ) (Rs.5,00,000/-) 8 Rajokari 17-04-1998 R-8 (01 Bigha 4 Biswa) (Rs.2,50,000/-) 9 Rajokari 15-02-1999 R-9 (08 Bigha 8 Biswa) (Rs.1,50,000/-) 10 Kapashera 15-01-1999 R-10 (02 Bigha 10 Biswa) (Rs.3,00,000/-) 11 Samalkha 18-02-1999 R-11 (02 Bigha 8 Biswa) (Rs.3,25,000/-) 12 Samalkha 29-11-2000 R-12 (01 Bigha 4 Biswa) (Rs.1,50,000/-) 13 Samalkha 29-11-2000 R-13 (01 Bigha 4 Biswa) (Rs.1,50,000/-) 14 Chhawla 08-11-2000 R-14 (02 Bigha 4 Biswa) (Rs.1,20,000/-) 15 Salhapur 18-11-2000 R-15 (02 Bigha 15 Biswa) (Rs.2,71,250/-) 16 Salhapur 18-11-2000 R-16 (03 Bigha 14 Biswa) (Rs.1,00,000/-) 17 Salhapur 18-11-2000 R-17 (01 Bigha 8 Biswa) (Rs.50,000/-) 18 Salhapur 02-11-2000 R-18 (06 Bigha ) (Rs.4,90,000/-) : 27: LAC 93A/06 - Sarup Singh etc. Vs. UOI
49. The counsel for petitioners raised objection for admissibility of these sale deeds as these are in contravention of Section 35 of Indian Stamp Act. He also pointed out that these sale deeds are pertaining to part of Village land which was never subjected to land use change and remained as agricultural land. In my opinion, the certified copies of sale deeds are permitted to be exhibited as admissible evidence as per Section 51 A of the Act. The basic purpose of this provision is to have a look at the prevalent market value of the land either of the same village or neighbouring villages at the time of notification u/s 4 of the Act. The other purpose is to see the projection of rise in land prices. In my opinion, the sale deeds Ex. R-1 to R-18 are admissible for the purposes of reflecting the prevalent market value trend of the land of same village or neighbouring villages.
50. In the case of Satpal & Ors. Vs. Union of India (1997) 11 Supreme Court Cases 423, Supreme Court held that :
"if there is no explanation whatsoever for such a sharp increase in price of land in such a short time. The rise in price is more than 100 per cent within a very short period which is not the usual prevailing trend in rise of prices in the area where the acquired land is situated. The more realistic sale deed, therefore be relied on those instances for assessing the market value of acquired land."
(This judgment is in regard to Village Palam acquired vide notification dated 27.01.1984 for Dwarka Phase-I).
: 28: LAC 93A/06 - Sarup Singh etc. Vs. UOI
51. The sale deeds proved by Union of India are showing much below the market value from the willing parties in order to avoid stamp duty by mentioning very low price as compared to sale deeds proved by petitioners. On the other hand, sale deeds produced by petitioners executed in favour of Radha Soami Satsang Beas and other sale deeds of Village Samalkha are showing the trend of high price prevailing approximately Rs.60 lacs per acre. The comparison of sale deeds shows rising prices to the extent of 400 to 500 per cent. There is no material on record to show or explain the comparative rise of price.
52. In the present case, sale deeds of Union of India are showing the trend of much below market value of the land and on the other hand set of sale deeds proved by the petitioners is showing a sharp increase in the price of the land. Both the sets of sale deeds filed by petitioners and Union of India are showing two extreme poles of price of the land. There is no explanation on behalf of petitioners for this high price sale deed as compared to the sale deeds proved by Union of India. Even for arguments sake, the sale deeds of petitioners belong to the area where land use was in change but it cannot give rise to such a difference of 400-500 per cent increase in the sale price. These sale deeds are not realistic which reflect unusual trend in rise of prices, therefore, cannot be the basis for assessing the market value of the acquired land. However, the sets of sale deeds relied by the petitioners and Union of India do not reflect the price of willing purchaser and willing buyer of the land. Hence on the basis of above observation and discussion, the sets of sale deeds proved by petitioners and Union of India do not set the basis to determine the market value of the acquired land.
: 29: LAC 93A/06 - Sarup Singh etc. Vs. UOI
53. The market value is fixed by this court in the case titled "Suraj Bhan and others Vs. UOI/DDA" bearing LAC No.136-A/2006 vide judgment dated 12-02-2008 involving the same award No.27/2002-03 of village Dhool Siras. Hence in the present case as well the market value of the land situated in village Dhool Siras be assessed after giving appreciation @ 12 per cent per annum for a period of about 8 months 13 days, total 257 days to arrive at just and fair market value of the acquired land. Accordingly by taking base value @ Rs.13.82 lakh per acre in block "A" and Rs.12.32 lakh per acre in block "B" on 01.04.2000 and by giving appreciation of 12 per cent per annum for a period of 257 days, the market value of the acquired land would be Rs.14,98,769/- per acre in block "A" and Rs.13,36,095/- per acre in block "B". It is rounded off to Rs. 15,00,000/- per acre in Block "A" and Rs. 13,36,000/- per acre in Block "B". Hence, the fair market value assessed of the acquired land on 13.12.2000 is Rs. 15,00,000/- per acre in block "A" and Rs. 13,36,000/- per acre in block "B". Both the issues are decided accordingly.
Relief:
54. On the basis of my findings on Issue nos. 1 and 2, the Petitioners are entitled to compensation @ Rs. 15,00,000/- per acre in block "A" and Rs. 13,36,000/- per acre in block "B". Besides this the Petitioners are also entitled to 30 per cent solatium on the market value of the land fixed in this case.
: 30: LAC 93A/06 - Sarup Singh etc. Vs. UOI
55. The petitioners shall also be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount/compensation awarded by this court u/s 28 of LA Act @ 9 per cent per annum from the date of award or dispossession whichever is earlier till the expiry of one year and thereafter @ 15 per cent per annum till payment.
56. The petitioners shall further be entitled to additional amount of 12 per cent per annum on the market value fixed in this case u/s 23 (1A) of the Act from the date of notification under section 4 of the Act till the date of dispossession or award whichever is earlier.
57. The petitioners are further entitled to interest on solatium and additional amount as per directions given by Supreme Court in the case of Sunder Versus UOI DLT 2001 (SC) 569 wherein it is held that person entitled to compensation awarded is also entitled to get interest on the aggregate amount including solatium.
58. The amount of compensation already paid to the petitioners be adjusted and deducted from total amount of compensation. No orders as to costs. The petition stands answered accordingly. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
59. A copy of the judgment be sent to Land Acquisition Collector (South West) for information and necessary action. File be consigned to record room.
(SANJAY KUMAR) Additional District Judge (LAC) Room no. 230, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Announced in the open court on 29-08-2008