Delhi District Court
Sh. S. S. Aggarwal vs Union Of India on 24 May, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. AKASH JAIN
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-01
SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI
LAC No:- 3/20 (Old No:- 01/96)
S. S. Aggarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
CNR No:- DLSE01-002670-2020
1. Sh. S. S. Aggarwal
S/o Sh. S. R. Aggarwal
2. Sh. Deepak Aggarwal
S/o Sh. S. S. Aggarwal
3. Smt. Nirmala Aggarwal
W/o Sh. S. S. Aggarwal
4. Sh. Ishwar Prasad Aggarwal
S/o Sh. S. R Aggarwal
(deleted vide order dated 04.06.2019)
5. Sh. Ravi Kumar Aggarwal
S/o Sh. I. P. Aggarwal
(deleted vide order dated 04.06.2019)
All R/o A-73, New Friends Colony
6. Sh. T. C. Verma
S/o Sh. Puran Singh
R/o Village Dera, Teshil Mehrauli Delhi
...... Petitioners
versus
1. Union of India
Through Land Acquisition Collector
Delhi
2. Delhi Development Authority
Through its Secretary
Vikas Sadan, New Delhi
Digitally ...... Respondents
signed by
AKASH AKASH JAIN
Date:
JAIN 2023.05.24
16:54:29
+0530
LAC No:- 3/20 (Old No:- 01/96) S. S. Aggarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 1 of 50
Date of institution of case : 20.01.1996
Date of Reserving Judgment : 15.04.2023
Date of Judgment : 24.05.2023
Reference Petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894
JUDGMENT
1. It is said that the true cost of acquiring land is not just the compensation paid, but the priceless loss of a piece of someone's heart and history. In this backdrop, I am going to dispose of the present reference petition under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') seeking enhancement of compensation which was filed by the petitioners on 20.10.1995 in the office of Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as 'LAC') and it had been forwarded to this Court by the LAC along with statement under Section 19 of the Act on 20.01.1996.
Factual Matrix
2. This petition along with another connected reference petition (in connected case no. 2/20) had arisen out of same Award no. 10/95-96, with respect to land measuring 12 Bighas and 11 Biswas falling in Khasra no. 112 (6-6), 564/167 (6-5) situated in Revenue Estate of Village Jasola. The land was acquired for the construction of sewage treatment plant under planned development of Delhi and after necessary notifications under Section 4, Section 6 and Section 17 of the Act, the land was acquired by the LAC. After completing necessary formalities, LAC passed an Award no. 10/95-96 on 11.10.1995 whereby market value of the acquired land AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2023.05.24 16:54:37 +0530 LAC No:- 3/20 (Old No:- 01/96) S. S. Aggarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 2 of 50 was determined @ Rs.96,875/- per bigha.
3. Following are the relevant dates, features and facts, necessary for deciding the present reference petition:-
(i) Date of notification : 06.01.1995
under Section 4 of the Act
(ii-a) Date of notification : 10.01.1995
under Section 6 of the Act
(ii-b) Date of notification : 06.01.1995
under Section 17 (1)
of the Act
(iii) For project : Construction of Sewage
treatment plant (STP)
(iv) Location/Name of Village : Village Jasola
(v-a) Award Number under Section : 10/95-96 of Village 11 of Act Jasola, New Delhi dated 11.10.1995 (v-b) Area under acquisition : (as detailed in statement under Section 19 of the Act) (v-c) Date of taking possession : 22.02.1995 (vi-a) Date of reference petition : 20.10.1995 to LAC (vi-b) Petition referred to Court on : 20.01.1996
4. The petitioners herein are the assignees who allegedly acquired the interest qua land in question from the original land owners i.e. assignors vide 3 separate registered assignment deeds dated 22.03.1995. After passing of the Award dated 11.10.1995, the petitioners/assignees filed the reference petition before LAC under Section 18 of the Act seeking higher compensation on 20.10.1995.
5. Notice of the reference petition was issued to both Digitally signed AKASH by AKASH JAIN Date:
JAIN 2023.05.24 16:54:45 +0530 LAC No:- 3/20 (Old No:- 01/96) S. S. Aggarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 3 of 50 Union of India (hereinafter referred to as 'UOI') as well as Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'DDA') who filed their written statements and denied the averments made in the reference petition. They averred that the compensation in the case in hand had been correctly assessed by the LAC and no enhancement in the compensation was warranted. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Court framed following issues in the present reference petition as well as in the connected petition as under:-
Issue no.1:- What was the market value of the acquired disputed land as on the date of notice under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act?
Issue no.2:- What enhancement in market value, if any, the petitioners/claimants is entitled to? Issue no. 3:- Relief.
6. The present reference petition along with the connected petition (No. 2/96) got consolidated at the request of the parties vide order dated 15.11.1996 and as agreed by the parties, the present matter i.e. reference petition LAC no. 1/96 was made the main/leading case and the evidence led in the present case was agreed to be read in the other case as well commonly.
Petitioner's evidence
7. In support of their case, petitioners examined Prehlad Singh, Assistant DDA office, Commercial land, INA, New Delhi, who was the summoned witness and brought the record i.e. file of plot no. 70, District Centre, Nehru Place, New Delhi, area of plot being 1784.38 sq. meters and it was allotted through tender on 13.04.1995 to M/s Great Eastern Shipping Company Ltd. for a AKASH by AKASH JAIN Digitally signed JAIN Date: 2023.05.24 16:54:51 +0530 LAC No:- 3/20 (Old No:- 01/96) S. S. Aggarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 4 of 50 sum of Rs. 34.20 crores. He deposed that lease deed was also executed after receipt of full consideration amount on 23.01.1996. He also relied upon following documents as under:-
(i) Ex. A-1 : Gazette notification dated 03.06.1966;
(ii) Ex. A-2 : Copy of judgment in LAC No. 2 of 1980 in the case of Bhola Nath & Shambhu Nath v. Union of India;
(iii) Ex. A-3 : Award no. 7/91-92 of Village Bahapur;
(iv) Ex. A-4 : Copy of Sale deed in respect of S-184, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi-110048;
(v) Ex. A-5 : Copy of Award passed by Sh. N. N. Goswamy, Former Judge of Delhi High Court dated 13.03.1993;
(vi) Mark-X : Copy of letter dated 13.04.1995 for grant of the perpetual leasehold right in plot no. 70 at District Centre, Nehru Place;
(vii) Ex. A-6 : Schedule of market rates of land in different areas of Delhi/New Delhi under the Control of Land and Development Office dated 11.02.1992;
(viii) Ex. A-7 : Award no. 10/79-80 of Village Bahapur;
(ix) Ex. A-8 : Award no. 6/92-93 of properties no.
13,14 Barakhamba Road, 2,4,6,8 and 10 at Tolstoy Marg and 12, 13 K. G. Marg;
(x) Ex. A-9 : Copy of judgment in RFA No. 240/90 and C. M. 754/91.
Respondent's Evidence
8. On the other hand, respondents examined Sh. Bhanwar Singh, Patwari as DW-1, who deposed that he had no knowledge about situation of Village Bahapur. He brought original Aks Sijara of Village Jasola and proved the copy of same as Ex. DW 1/1. He further deposed that the acquired land was nearer to Village Kotla Mahigram. During cross-examination, DW-1 stated that Village Bahapur was situated on the northern and western side AKASH Digitally AKASH JAIN signed by JAIN Date: 2023.05.24 16:54:59 +0530 LAC No:- 3/20 (Old No:- 01/96) S. S. Aggarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 5 of 50 of the acquired land in question.
9. Respondents further examined DW-2, Sh. Naresh Kumar, LDC, Office of Sub-Divisional Officer-Cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Kalkaji, Defence Colony, New Delhi, who relied upon documents i.e. photocopies of sale deeds Ex. R-1 to Ex. R-8 (though not properly numbered in the record). While sale deeds Ex. R-1 to Ex. R-8 reflected sale of parcels of land in Village Jasola by same vendors in favour of different vendees on same date i.e. 22.03.1993, Ex. RW 2/9 reflected sale of parcel of land in Village Jasola on 17.04.1985. Thereafter, UOI closed its evidence and almost similar evidence was led by DDA.
Findings of Court of Ld. ADJ
10. Vide judgment dated 29.09.1997, the Court of then Ld. ADJ answered the reference petition of petitioners. The Court disregarded the sale deed, Awards, Judgments relied upon by the petitioners as they pertained to nearby lands. While relying upon the sale deeds tendered in evidence on behalf of respondents, the Court held that to assess market value of a land first preference has to be given to the sale deeds relating to the same village of which the land had been acquired. The Court further held that the sale deeds Ex. R-1 to Ex. R-8 being executed in March, 1993 for the sale of land in Village Jasola had greater probative value. Thus, in tune with the amounts settled in the aforesaid sale deeds, the Court was pleased to enhance the market value of the land in question in the present reference petition (as well as in the connected reference petition) and assessed that the market value of acquired land at the Digitally signed AKASH by AKASH JAIN Date:
JAIN 2023.05.24 16:55:09 +0530 LAC No:- 3/20 (Old No:- 01/96) S. S. Aggarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 6 of 50 time of notification under Section 4 of the Act was Rs.1,02,000/- per Bigha.
Further enhancement of compensation in Appeal by Hon'ble Delhi High Court
11. The said judgment was challenged by the petitioners before Hon'ble Delhi High Court in RFA No. 114/98 and RFA No. 155/98. Vide judgment dated 21.02.2003, Hon'ble Delhi High Court was pleased to allow the appeal and petitioners were held entitled to enhanced compensation qua acquired land at the market rate of Rs. 7,390/- per sq. yard besides other statutory benefits.
Case remanded back by Hon'ble Supreme Court
12. Thereafter, both UOI and DDA challenged the aforesaid order dated 21.02.2003 before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide Civil Appeal no. 7301-7302 of 2003, Civil Appeal no. 836 of 2004 and Civil Appeal no. 6264-6265 of 2011. Vide judgment dated 02.08.2011, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India set- aside the impugned judgment dated 21.02.2003 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the one passed by earlier reference Court dated 29.09.1997 and remanded the matter back to the reference Court (i.e. this Court) for fresh determination of compensation payable to the land owners and/or assignees. It was further directed that this Court should first decide the issue of locus of assignees to claim compensation and if it is held that the assignees are entitled to step into the shoes of the land owners, then the Court shall consider the value of land mentioned in the assignment deeds and decide what compensation should be paid for the acquired land.
AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2023.05.24 16:55:15 +0530 LAC No:- 3/20 (Old No:- 01/96) S. S. Aggarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 7 of 50 Hon'ble Supreme Court further gave opportunity to both the parties to lead additional evidence in support of their respective cases and permitted DDA to raise all other legally permissible objections to contest the claim of the assignees.
Issues
13. Upon receipt of the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the original Trial Court record along with record before LAC was summoned by the Court. Based on the material on record and in the light of judgment dated 02.08.2011, Ld. Predecessor Court was pleased to frame following issues as under:
Issue no.1:- Whether petitioner Sh. S. S. Aggarwal and others have locus standi to file petition or claim compensation as assignees (of land owners) in place of land owners? OPP Issue no.2:- Whether the petitioners have stepped into the place of land owners? OPP Issue no.3:- What was the market value of land acquired on the date of preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? Onus on parties Issue no.4:- Whether the petitioners are entitled for enhancement of market value of land if so at what rate? OPP Issue no.5:- Relief.
14. Thereafter, matter was proceeded for petitioner's evidence.
Petitioner's Evidence (Post remand)
15. The petitioners examined one of the petitioner Sh. Tara Chand Verma as PW-1 who deposed that Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Sh. Suresh Kumar and Sh. Pritam Singh, all sons of Sh. Budh Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN AKASH Date:
JAIN 2023.05.24
16:55:22
+0530
LAC No:- 3/20 (Old No:- 01/96) S. S. Aggarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 8 of 50
Singh were the recorded owners of land khasra no. 112(6-6) and 564/167 (6-5) total area measuring 12 Bighas and 11 Biswas situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Jasola, New Delhi. PW-1 further deposed that after the acquisition of aforesaid land, the recorded owners transferred all their rights, title and interest in the compensation qua acquired land to the present petitioners vide registered assignment deeds dated 22.03.1995. PW-1 deposed that all the recorded owners appeared before the LAC and recorded their statements accepting the execution of assignment deeds. Based upon the statements of the parties and upon the payment of original compensation, a corrigendum was drawn by the LAC in the Award for their record. PW-1 deposed that the assignment deeds were executed by the recorded owners in favour of petitioners voluntarily and without any coercion, undue influence and misrepresentation. Consequently, statement under Section 19 of the Act was duly forwarded by the LAC in the name of petitioners and thus, petitioners are entitled to receive enhanced compensation which may be determined by this Court. PW-1 deposed that the land in question is situated on the main road at Sarita Vihar towards Kalindi Kunj and Apollo Hospital and has all sorts of civic amenities being surrounded by posh and developed colonies such as Sarita Vihar, Sukhdev Vihar, Jasola, Harkesh Nagar, Mathura Road, New Friends Colony, Okhla Industrial Area, Part-II etc. PW-1 further deposed that entire revenue Estate of village Jasola was urbanized by the Government vide notification dated 03.06.1966 and that the land in question had great potential value and at the relevant time of notification under Section 4 of the Act, the value of property was not less than Rs. 10,000/- per sq. yards. PW-1 relied upon following documents Digitally signed as under:-
AKASH by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2023.05.24 16:55:29 +0530 LAC No:- 3/20 (Old No:- 01/96) S. S. Aggarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 9 of 50
(i) Ex. PW 1/1 (colly) : Assignment Deeds all dated (OSR) 22.03.1995;
(ii) Mark-A/PW-1 (colly) : Certified copy of statement and proceedings before Land Acquisition Collector;
(iii) Mark-B/PW-1 (colly) : Certified copy of corrigendum, surety bonds, affidavits and order of Land Acquisition Collector;
(iv) Ex. PW 1/4 : Certified copy of notification dated 03.06.1966;
(v) Ex. PW 1/5 : Certified copy of Eicher map of Delhi;
(vi) Ex. PW 1/6 : Certified copy of judgment and decree dated 21.02.2003 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in RFA No. 114/98 titled as S. S. Aggarwal & Ors. v. UOI & Anr;
(vii) Mark-C/PW-1 : Copy of arbitration award dated 13.03.1993;
(viii) Mark-D/PW-1 : Copy of Tender of perpetual lease dated 13.04.1995;
(ix) Mark-E/PW-1 : Copy of Award no. 6/92-93 of of properties no. 13,14 Barakhamba Road, 2,4,6,8 and 10 at Tolstoy Marg and 12, 13 K. G. Marg;
(x) Ex. PW 1/10 : Certified copy of judgment dated 23.07.2010 in LAC no. 63/08 in matter titled as Vinod Kumar Sharma & Ors. v. UOI and Anr.;
(xi) Ex. PW 1/11 : Certified copy of judgment dated 19.10.2001 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in RFA No. 416/86 in the matter of Ram Chander and ors. v. UOI;
(xii) Ex. PW 1/12 : Certified copy of order in SLP (c) 2188 and 2517/2008 titled as Union of India v. Ho Ram & Ors.
Dated 18.02.2008;
(xiii) Ex. PW 1/13 : Certified copy of judgment dated 02.08.2011 in LAC no. 75/11 in AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN LAC No:- 3/20 (Old No:- 01/96) JAIN Date: 2023.05.24 16:55:37 +0530 S. S. Aggarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 10 of 50 the matter of Dharamvir Singh & Ors. v. UOI & Anr.;
(xiv) Ex. PW 1/14 : Certified copy of order dated 10.01.2012 in LAC no. 224/11 in the matter of Jagdish Gulati v.
UOI;
(xv) Ex. PW 1/15 : Certified copy of schedule of market rates in Delhi dated 11.02.1992;
(xvi) Ex. PW 1/16 : Certified copy of Judgment i.e. Kapil Mehra v. Union of India reported as 176 (2011) DLT 361;
(xvii) Ex. PW 1/17 : Certified copy of judgment i.e. Bedi Ram v. Union of India reported as 93 (2001) DLT 150;
(xviii) Ex. PW 1/18 : Certified copy of judgment i.e.G. Prema v. Special Tehsildar reported as 2010 V AD (SC) 510;
(xix) Ex. PW 1/19 : Certified copy of judgment i.e. Om Prakash v. State of Haryana reported as 2011 IV AD (SC) 383;
(xx) Ex. PW 1/20 : Certified copy of judgment i.e. Mehrawal Khewaji Trust v. State of Punjab reported as 2012 V AD (SC) 110.
PW-1 further tendered his supplementary affidavit in evidence vide AA-1 and relied upon following documents as under:
(xxi) Ex. PW 1/21 : Certified copy of judgment and decree dated 16.03.2005 in LAC no. 16/1999 in the matter of Kishan Lal & Ors. v. UOI & Anr;
(xxii) Ex. PW 1/22 : Certified copy of reply along with affidavit filed by DDA in Ex. No. 20/14 in the matter of Kishan Lal & Ors. v. UOI/DDA;
(xxiii) Ex. PW 1/23 (colly) : Certified copy of proceedings as
(25 pages) well as order sheets in Ex. No.
20/14 in the matter of Kishan Lal
AKASH Digitally signed by
AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2023.05.24
16:55:43 +0530
LAC No:- 3/20 (Old No:- 01/96) S. S. Aggarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 11 of 50
& Ors. v. UOI & Anr.
16. PW-2 is Sh. Deeraj Kumar, LDC/Record Keeper from Office of Sub Registrar-V, Mehrauli, Delhi-110030, who brought the summoned record i.e. assignment deeds dated 22.03.1995 and proved them as Ex. PW 1/1 (colly). PW-2 corroborated that the said assignment deeds were registered in the Office of Sub-
Registrar-V, Mehrauli as per the record.
17. PW-3 is Sh. V. Ramakrishnan, Superintendent, Land & Development Office, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi-110011, who brought the summoned record i.e. certified copy of schedule of market rates of land in different areas of Delhi dated 24.01.1992. The same is proved as Ex. PW 3/A.
18. PW- 4 is Sh. Zakir Hussain, Senior Assistant/Cashier LAC (SE) Branch, Office at Old Gargi College Building, Lajpat Nagar-IV, DC office, South-East District, New Delhi, who was the summoned witness. PW-4 deposed that he did not bring the summoned record but had seen the certified copy which was obtained from their office by the Counsel for petitioner i.e. order of LAC, Corrigendum, statement of Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Sh. Suresh Kumar and Sh. Pritam Singh dated 10.05.1995, Form CC in two pages, surety bonds and affidavits of the petitioners in 18 pages. He proved the aforesaid marked documents from record as as Ex. PW 4/A (colly).
19. PW-5 is Sh. M. L. Meena, Kanoongo from the Office AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2023.05.24 16:55:49 +0530 LAC No:- 3/20 (Old No:- 01/96) S. S. Aggarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 12 of 50 of LAC (SE), Old Gargi College Building, Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi who brought the summoned record i.e. original naksha muntazamin and corrigendum of the same in respect of land Khasra no. 564/167 (6-5) and 112 (6-6) total area measuring 12-11, original naksha alif, original Naksha (B) of the above-mentioned land, original naksha muntazamin, original possession proceedings dated 22.02.1995, original khatauni for the year 1982-83 and office copy of the notices under Section 9(1) and 10(1) of the Act and proved these documents as Ex. PW 5/1 (colly) (OSR).
20. PW- 6 is Sh. Ram Avtar, Halka Patwari of Village Jasola from the Office of SDM (Sarita Vihar), Old Gargi College Building, Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi, who brought the original khatauni for the year 1982-83 of Village Jasola in respect of land Khasra no. 564/167 (6-5) and 112 (6-6) total area measuring 12-11. The copy of same was proved as Ex. PW 6/1 (OSR).
21. All the petitioner witnesses were duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsels for respondents. Petitioner's evidence was thereafter, closed on 06.12.2017 and matter was proceeded for respondent's evidence.
Respondent's Evidence
22. Ld. Counsel for UOI, relied upon Award passed by LAC bearing no. 10/95-96 of Village Jasola vide Ex. R1 and sought adjournment for bringing relevant sale deeds in support of his case. Thereafter, several opportunities were granted to the respondents to bring the sale deeds and to conclude respondent's evidence, but in vain. Finally, on 19.02.2019 the respondent's AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2023.05.24 16:55:56 +0530 LAC No:- 3/20 (Old No:- 01/96) S. S. Aggarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 13 of 50 evidence was closed by Ld. Predecessor Court and the matter was listed for final arguments.
23. During the course of final arguments, an application under Section 151 CPC was moved on behalf of petitioners vide which it was stated that in terms of orders passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated 12.09.2003, they had already received 25% of the compensation amount. Another application was moved under Section 151 CPC for deletion of names of petitioner no. 4 and 5 namely, Sh. Ishwar Prasad and Sh. Ravi Aggarwal respectively on the ground that in the execution petition bearing no. 1109/2016 titled as S. S. Aggarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., petitioner no. 4 and 5 had already relinquished their rights in respect of compensation payable in favour of Smt. Nirmala Devi Aggarwal i.e. petitioner no. 3, vide assignment deed dated 19.11.2003. It was further stated that on 08.01.2004, petitioner no. 4 and 5 got their joint statements recorded to this effect in the above-mentioned execution petition and on the basis of the same voucher, a sum of Rs. 1,07,09,482/- in respect of 25% of the compensation amount was given to her. In view of no objection of Ld. Counsel for UOI to the same, application under Section 151 CPC was allowed and original petitioner no. 4 and 5 namely, Sh. Ishwar Prasad and Sh. Ravi Aggarwal were deleted from the array of the parties.
Analysis and findings
24. I have comprehensively heard the rival contentions on behalf of both the parties and perused the voluminous record of the case spanning nearly 27 years. My issue-wise findings are as Digitally signed AKASH by AKASH JAIN Date:
JAIN 2023.05.24 16:56:02 +0530 LAC No:- 3/20 (Old No:- 01/96) S. S. Aggarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 14 of 50 follows:-
25. Issue no.1 and 2 Issue no.1:- Whether petitioner Sh. S. S. Aggarwal and others have locus standi to file petition or claim compensation as assignees (of land owners) in place of land owners? OPP and, Issue no.2:- Whether the petitioners have stepped into the place of land owners? OPP
26. Both the aforesaid issues are taken up together as they are inter-connected and entail common discussion. The onus to prove both these issues is upon the petitioners.
27. Pursuant to the judgment dated 02.08.2011 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, this Court was enjoined to first decide the issue of locus of the assignees to claim compensation in the present case and to ascertain whether the assignees had stepped into the shoes of original land owners.
28. At the outset, the land in question in present reference petition i.e. land ad-measuring 12 Bighas and 11 Biswas falling in Khasra no. 112 (6-6), 564/167 (6-5) situated in Revenue Estate of Village Jasola was originally owned by Sh. Budh Singh S/o Sh. Doodha Ram in terms of original Khatauni of Village Jasola for the year 1982-83, proved by PW-6 i.e. Halka Patwari of Village Jasola as Ex. PW 6/1 (OSR). Sh. Budh Singh reportedly died on 02.08.1994 and the factum of his demise was duly recorded in Naksha Aalif of Village Jasola, already proved as Ex. PW 5/1 AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2023.05.24 16:56:08 +0530 LAC No:- 3/20 (Old No:- 01/96) S. S. Aggarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 15 of 50 (colly). The land in question as mentioned above thereafter, stood mutated in the name of Sh. Suresh Kumar, Sh. Ramesh Kumar and Sh. Pritam Singh, all sons of Late Sh. Budh Singh. The factum of mutation got duly recorded in the Khatauni of Village Jasola vide separate noting of Naib Office Kanoongo dated 31.01.1995. The same is proved as Ex. PW 6/1 (OSR). Naksha (B) of Village Jasola was also brought on record by PW-5 i.e. Kanoongo from the Office of LAC South-East, which reflected Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Sh. Suresh Kumar and Sh. Pritam Singh as owners of land in question. The same is also proved as Ex. PW 5/1 (colly).
29. The aforesaid documents thus, clearly evince that prior to acquisition of land in question by the Government it was owned by Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Sh. Suresh Kumar and Sh. Pritam Singh, all sons of Late Sh. Budh Singh. Nonetheless, the ownership of previous land owners with respect to the acquired land is not even disputed by the respondents. This brings us to the next question as to whether the abovesaid land owners lawfully executed assignment deeds qua their rights in the acquired land in favour of the petitioners and whether the said assignment of rights in land is otherwise permissible in law.
Assignment Deeds, whether lawfully executed
30. In order to discharge this onus, petitioners examined PW-1 who categorically deposed vide his affidavit in evidence Ex. A-1 that the previous land owners namely Sh. Suresh Kumar, Sh. Ramesh Kumar and Sh. Pritam Singh executed registered assignment deeds dated 22.03.1995 in favour of the petitioners for AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2023.05.24 16:56:15 +0530 LAC No:- 3/20 (Old No:- 01/96) S. S. Aggarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 16 of 50 consideration. All the three registered assignment deeds dated 22.03.1995 were proved by PW-1 as Ex. PW 1/1 (colly). By virtue of these assignment deeds the previous land owners transferred their respective rights qua land in question to the petitioners for a total consideration amount of Rs. 5,40,000/- (which was duly received by them by way of separate 18 cheques of Rs.30,000/- each before concerned Sub-Registrar on 21.03.1995).
31. The original record of aforesaid assignment deeds was summoned from the Office of Sub-Registrar-V, Mehrauli by the petitioners. PW-2 duly proved the assignment deeds already placed on record by PW-1 as Ex. PW 1/1 (colly). It is argued by Ld. Counsel for petitioners that the assignment deeds were duly brought into the notice of LAC concerned prior to grant of compensation in this case and separate statements of the previous land owners/assignors as well as assignees were also recorded by the LAC concerned. However, owing to lack of communication, Ld. Counsel for the petitioners could not put forth this argument before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, resulting in remand of this matter back to the Reference Court.
32. Prior to passing of the Award in question no. 10/95-96 dated 11.10.1995, an application was moved on behalf of all the petitioners before the Office of Ld. LAC concerned for payment of compensation. Vide said application, the petitioners delineated the facts that the possession of land in question under Section 17(4) of the Act had already been obtained by the Government and original Bhumidars had transferred all their rights in compensation, to be AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2023.05.24 16:56:23 +0530 LAC No:- 3/20 (Old No:- 01/96) S. S. Aggarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 17 of 50 awarded by the LAC and/or to be enhanced by the Courts, to the petitioners vide 3 registered assignment deeds dated 22.03.1995. As such, they prayed that the compensation amount be paid to them according to their shares in the assignment deeds.
33. On receipt of the said application, joint statements of all the previous land owners namely, Sh. Suresh Kumar, Sh. Ramesh Kumar and Sh. Pritam Singh were recorded before the LAC whereby they affirmed the factum of assignment of their rights qua land in question in favour of petitioners on 10.05.1995. Separate statements of one of the witness namely, Sh. S. K. Sarogi and Advocate of the petitioners namely, Sh. Chaudhary Swaroop Singh were also recorded by the LAC concerned on the same date. Consequently, after passing of the Award dated 11.10.1995, all the petitioners were paid their respective shares of Rs.2,80,160/- each on 17.10.1995 vide separate vouchers and corrigendum drawn by the LAC. The certified copies of aforesaid applications, statements, corrigendum, vouchers, surety bonds and affidavits are proved by PW-4 i.e. summoned witness from the Office of LAC, South-East District vide Ex. PW 4/A (colly).
34. During cross-examination of PW-1 by Ld. Counsel for UOI, it was further transpired that the copy of assignment deeds were handed over to the office of LAC by the petitioners prior to the receipt of compensation amount.
35. Keeping in view the testimonies of petitioner's witnesses and material brought on record, it can be safely Digitally signed AKASH by AKASH JAIN Date:
JAIN 2023.05.2416:56:28 +0530 LAC No:- 3/20 (Old No:- 01/96) S. S. Aggarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 18 of 50 concluded that the original land owners of the acquired land in question willfully transferred their rights to seek compensation to the petitioners on 22.03.1995 vide separate registered assignment deeds prior to passing of the Award by the LAC concerned for separate consideration, which was duly received by them in advance. The parties got their separate statements recorded before the LAC concerned and after passing of the Award, the LAC acknowledged the fact of assignment by granting compensation of acquired land to the assignees/petitioners in place of the original land owners. Nothing substantial is brought on record on behalf of respondents to suggest otherwise.
36. Therefore, it is held that pursuant to the registered assignment deeds dated 22.03.1995, the assignees/petitioners had stepped into the shoes of original land owners/bhumidars for seeking compensation with respect to the acquired land. At this stage, it apposite to deal with another objection raised on behalf of respondents questioning the legality of assignment deeds in favour of the petitioners.
Assignment Deeds, whether legally permissible
37. It is argued by Ld. Counsels for respondents that assignment deed infers purchase of litigation which cannot be allowed. It is further argued that the assignees purchased rights qua land from the assignors at meager rates which is against public policy and hit by Section 23 and 25 of The Indian Contract Act. While relying upon the judgment of Sadhna Gupta & Ors. v. Shishpal & Anr. in Ex. F.A. 25/14, it is argued by Ld. Counsel for AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2023.05.24 16:56:34 +0530 LAC No:- 3/20 (Old No:- 01/96) S. S. Aggarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 19 of 50 respondents that by purchasing the right to get compensation by paying a sum of Rs. 58 per sq. yards to the land owners, while claiming Rs. 10,000/- per sq. yards from Reference Court, petitioners/assignees cannot be permitted to get unjustly enriched at the expense of the original land owners/assignors. Ld. Counsel for respondents further placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Agra Development Authority v. State of UP, 2004 All LJ 1852, wherein Division Bench of Allahabad High Court held that right to pursue litigation to recover compensation could not be transferred as it is prohibited by Section 6(e) of The Transfer of Property Act. It is argued that SLP(C) no. 14042/2004 preferred against the said decision was also dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 27.01.2005.
38. In response of these arguments, Ld. Counsel for petitioners relied upon the judgment of Hari Ram v. K. L. Gandhi, Cr. P No. 866/1991, wherein it was held that mere insufficiency of consideration is no ground to disregard the assignment deed. Since, assignors did not challenge the assignment deeds by bringing an action for cancellation of the said deeds under Specific Relief Act or any other provision of law within stipulated period of limitation from the date of execution of the assignment deeds, the same cannot be discredited at the instance of UOI or DDA. It is argued that the judgment of Hari Ram(supra) was affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India with the dismissal of SLP (c) no. 15575/2004 on 10.12.2004. Even the review petition was dismissed on 02.02.2005 and curative petition was also dismissed on 06.10.2005. Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN AKASH Date:
JAIN 2023.05.24
16:56:39
+0530
LAC No:- 3/20 (Old No:- 01/96) S. S. Aggarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 20 of 50
39. Ld. Counsels for petitioners further relied upon the case of Laxmi Narain v. Union of India & Anr., RFA No. 140/1972 decided on 24.11.1977 wherein it was held as under:
".... The claim for enhancement of compensation was pending before the Additional District Judge, Delhi when the document dated December 8, 1971 was executed. Ram Devi was competent to transfer her interest, whatever it may have been. to the appellants. She did so. On the Additional District Judge pronouncing his award judgment, the appellants, having already purchased the right to claim compensation, filed and were competent to file the appeal. The case does not fall under clause (e) of Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act which says that mere right to sue cannot be transferred. What was transferred was not a right to sue but to obtain compensation or enhancement thereof in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act...."
40. In the case of Sh. Chandan & Ors. v. Union of India, CM No. 2096/1995 in RFA No. 237/1992 decided on 07.11.1997, while relying upon the judgment of Laxmi Narain (Supra), it was held by Hon'ble Division Bench of Delhi High Court as follows:-
".... Thus in case of an assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during the pendency of litigation the person upon whom such an interest has come or devolved can seek leave of the Court for substitution. Right to receive compensation accrued to the appellants when their lands were acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. On award being made, the compensation was received by them under protest and they sought reference for enhancement. Enhancement was allowed. For further enhancement the instant appeal has been preferred. During the pendency of appeal, the appellants admittedly have, for valuable consideration transferred their rights in favour of the applicants to receive and recover the enhanced amount of compensation. Such a right, which is claimed is not at all covered by clauses (a) and (e) of Section 6 of Transfer of Property Act.
Clause (a) of Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act prohibits transfer of the chance of an heir-apparent succeeding to an estate, the chance of a relation obtaining a legacy on death of kinsman, or any other mere possibility of AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2023.05.24 16:56:46 +0530 LAC No:- 3/20 (Old No:- 01/96) S. S. Aggarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 21 of 50 a like nature. The possibilities referred to in this clause are bare or naked possibilities and not possibilities coupled with an interest. Section 5 of the Act defines 'transfer of property. A transfer of property may take place not only in the present but also in the future. Some interest in the property are future. Right to receive compensation is statutory, which crystallized on acquisition of property. Right to claim enhancement in compensation is also statutorily conferred. It is this right, which has been assigned. No doubt that enhancement in compensation is a mere possibility but that possibility is coupled with an interest to receive and realize the compensation. Clause (e) of section 6 of the Act refers to a mere right to sue, transfer of which is also prohibited. But what has been transferred is not a bare right to sue but right to receive and realize the enhanced compensation...".
41. In the case of K. D. Sawhney & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., in FAO No. 294/2014 decided on 15.10.2014, while relying upon the judgment of Chandan & Ors.(supra), Hon'ble Delhi High Court allowed the substitution application of assignee under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, which was dismissed by the Reference Court pursuant to Section 6(e) of The Transfer of Property Act.
42. In the case of Mahavir Goel v. Union of India & Ors., in C.M. (M) No. 98/2015 decided on 03.08.2015 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the original owner in question executed an assignment deed during the pendency of reference proceedings under Section 18 of the Act. Thereafter, the first assignee further made an assignment in favour of the applicants who sought impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC in the reference. While relying upon the cases of K. D. Sawhney & Ors.(supra) and Om Prakash & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., in C.M. (M) No. 616/2008 decided on 18.12.2014, the said applicants were held entitled to get impleaded in the reference petition being subsequent AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN LAC No:- 3/20 (Old No:- 01/96) JAIN Date: 2023.05.24 16:56:52 +0530 S. S. Aggarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 22 of 50 transferees in respect of the rights qua land in question.
43. Moreover, in the case of Suraj Singh Through LRs. & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., in L.A. APP No. 9/2012 dated 10.09.2018, while placing reliance upon the cases of Chandan & Ors.(supra), K. D. Sawhney & Ors.(supra) and Mahavir Goel(supra), Hon'ble Delhi High Court allowed substitution of assignee in place of the original land owner, to receive compensation qua land in question.
44. Thus, assignment of rights to receive compensation during pendency of a litigation by original land owner has been clearly permitted in catena of cases by Hon'ble Superior Courts over the years. It is further no longer res integra that Section 6(e) of The Transfer of Property Act only prohibits right to sue, however, what has been transferred is not mere right to sue but right to receive and realize the enhanced compensation. In the present case, registered assignment deeds executed by the original land owners in favour of the petitioners were made for valuable consideration which was duly received by the assignors prior to passing of Award. As such, the said assignment deeds are not hit by Section 23 to 25 of The Indian Contract Act, as alleged by the respondents.
45. The reliance placed by respondents upon the judgment of Sadhna Gupta & Ors.(supra) is also misplaced as the facts of the said case are distinguishable from those in the case in hand. In the said case, the assignment deed was challenged by the original Digitally signed AKASH by AKASH JAIN Date:
JAIN 2023.05.24 16:56:58 +0530 LAC No:- 3/20 (Old No:- 01/96) S. S. Aggarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 23 of 50 land owner, on whose behalf his power of Attorney holder executed an assignment deed with assignee for a meager consideration amount which could also not shown to be paid. While, in the present case there is no challenge whatsoever to the assignment deeds by the original land owners who had already received the consideration amount qua their rights in the acquired land from the assignees about more than 27 years ago. Therefore, it is held that the assignment of rights to receive compensation by the assignors/original land owners in favour of the assignees/petitioners vide registered assignment deeds dated 22.03.1995 was legally permissible and the petitioners are entitled to seek enhanced compensation qua acquired land as they had lawfully stepped into the shoes of the original land owners. Both the issues no. 1 and 2 are decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
46. Issue no.3 and 4 Issue no.3:- What was the market value of land acquired on the date of preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? Onus on parties and, Issue no.4:- Whether the petitioners are entitled for enhancement of market value of land if so at what rate? OPP
47. The aforesaid issues are taken up jointly being interrelated for the sake of brevity.
48. The Award in question pertains to land situated within the Revenue Estate of Jasola which has been subject matter of AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN LAC No:- 3/20 (Old No:- 01/96) JAIN Date: 2023.05.24 16:57:05 +0530 S. S. Aggarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 24 of 50 acquisition ever since the government started acquiring lands for planned development of Delhi. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for the petitioners that land situated in this Revenue Estate was first acquired on 13.11.1959 and thereafter on 24.10.1961, 06.04.1964, 05.06.1979 and 12.05.1986. It is argued that vide Notification No. F-2(49)/65-LSG dated 28.05.1966 issued under Section 507-A of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957, the Revenue Estate of Village Jasola and its adjacent village Bahapur were declared urbanized. While relying upon the judgments of Smt. Indu Khorana v. Gram Sabha and Ors., 2010 SC Online Del 1334 and Swaran Lata & Ors. v. Kulbhushan Lal & Ors., 210 (2014) DLT 393 (DB), it is argued by Ld. Counsel for the petitioners that the provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 would cease to apply to the lands forming part of 'urban areas'. It is further argued that since acquired land had become part of urban area pursuant to notification dated 28.05.1966, it is no more an 'agricultural land'.
49. It is argued that the land in question is situated on the main Mathura Road at Sarita Vihar towards Kalindi Kunj and Apollo Hospital being surrounded by posh and developed colonies such as Sarita Vihar, Sukhdev Vihar, Jasola, Harkesh Nagar, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area, New Friends Colony, Okhla Industrial Area, Part-II etc. It is further argued that the adjoining revenue estate is Bahapur and on the acquired land of Village Bahapur posh colonies and business centres are located like Kalkaji and Nehru Place. It is argued that post urbanization in the year 1966, lots of development activities had taken place at the land in question and all the civic amenities like electricity, water, sewerage, roads, hospitals and telephone connections are available AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN LAC No:- 3/20 (Old No:- 01/96) JAIN S. S.16:57:12 Date: 2023.05.24 +0530 Aggarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 25 of 50 in the area.
50. While relying upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Major General Kapil Mehra & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., in LA APP No. 149/2007 decided on 24.12.2010, it is argued by Ld. Counsel for petitioners that no doubt, one of the parameters for fixing the market value of the acquired land is potentiality of the land, but the Courts should not go by the actual use to which the land was being put at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Act. It is argued that what is relevant for the Court is to see the better use to which the land is reasonably capable of being put in the immediate or near future. It is submitted that the present judgment was upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CC No. 7995/2011 titled as DDA v. Kapil Mehra & Ors.
51. The petitioners relied upon the copy of Arbitration award dated 13.03.1993 Mark-C/PW-1 wherein market value of land situated in Village Bahapur as on 24.01.1983 was determined @ Rs. 2,157/- per sq. yards. The petitioners placed reliance upon letter of allotment dated 13.04.1995 of perpetual lease hold rights in plot no. 70 at District Centre, Nehru Place (Village Bahapur) Mark-D/PW-1 which reflected market value of land as on 13.04.1995 @ Rs.1,65,000/- per sq. yards. The petitioners further relied upon certified copy of schedule of market rates in Delhi i.e. Ex. PW 1/15 vide which minimum land rates as on 11.02.1992 for residential plots were fixed @ Rs. 8,400/- per sq. meter (Rs.7,245/- per sq. yards) for Kalkaji which falls in Village Bahapur.
AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2023.05.24 16:57:18 +0530 LAC No:- 3/20 (Old No:- 01/96) S. S. Aggarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 26 of 50
52. The petitioners further relied upon the case of Ram Chander and Ors. v. UOI, RFA No. 416/86 decided on 19.10.2001, wherein Hon'ble Division Bench of Delhi High Court determined market value of land situated in Village Jasola acquired through notification under Section 4 of the Act as on 15.06.1979 @ Rs.2,240/- per sq. yards. While doing so Hon'ble Delhi High Court placed reliance upon the judgment of Union of India v. Bhola Nath Sharma (dead) by LRs. & Anr, SLP (Civil) No. 1608/99 which pertained to village Bahapur and vide which market value of land in village Bahapur was finally settled @ Rs.2,000/- per sq. yards as on 30.06.1978. Review petition No. 1359 of 1999 filed by Union of India against said order was also dismissed on 13.10.1999.
53. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners thus, argued that while applying the principles as laid down in the case of Bedi Ram v. Union of India & Anr. 93 (2001) DLT 150 to the market rate as determined in Ram Chander's case(supra), by allowing gradual increase per year from 15.06.1979 to 06.01.1995, market value of the acquired land would work out to be Rs. 13,118/- per sq. yards, while petitioners are merely claiming market value of land at the relevant time of notification under Section 4 to be not more than Rs. 10,000/- per sq. yards.
54. Ld. Counsel for petitioners placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Ld. Reference Court in LAC No. 75/2011 titled as Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India & Ors. i.e. Ex. PW 1/13 which pertained to notification under Section 4 of the Act Digitally signed AKASH by AKASH JAIN Date:
JAIN 2023.05.24 16:57:24 +0530 LAC No:- 3/20 (Old No:- 01/96) S. S. Aggarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 27 of 50 dated 12.05.1986 qua land falling in revenue estate of Jasola. Vide judgment dated 02.08.2011, Ld. Reference Court was pleased to determine market value of the land in Jasola as on 12.05.1986 @ Rs. 3,808/- per sq. yards.
55. Additionally, Ld. Counsel for petitioners relied upon certified copy of judgment and decree dated 16.03.2005 in LAC No. 16/1999 in the matter of Kishan Lal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. Ex. PW 1/21 and certified copies of proceedings, reply, affidavits in Ex. No. 20/14 in the aforesaid matter as Ex. PW 1/22 and Ex. PW 1/23 (colly). The aforesaid reference petition pertained to same award no. 10/95-96 of village Jasola as the one in the present case. Vide judgment dated 16.03.2005, Ld. Reference Court had determined market value of land in question in village Jasola @ Rs. 7,390/- per sq. yards as on 06.01.1995 i.e. the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. It is argued that neither UOI nor DDA challenged the said judgment in appeal and the applicants therein also received compensation at aforesaid rates from the Government in the execution proceedings i.e. Ex. No. 20/14. It is thus, prayed that petitioners herein cannot be granted compensation qua acquired land in question less than Rs. 7,390/- per sq. yards.
56. It is argued that petitioners are entitled to the cumulative increase i.e. compounding @ 15% on Rs.2,240/- per sq. yard from 15.06.1979, which was the compensation fixed in respect of land acquired vide notification dated 15.06.1979 or in the alternative the petitioners are entitled to cumulative increase @ Digitally signed AKASH by AKASH JAIN Date:
JAIN 2023.05.24 16:57:30 +0530 LAC No:- 3/20 (Old No:- 01/96) S. S. Aggarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 28 of 50 15% on Rs.3,808/- per sq. yard from 12.05.1986, which was the compensation fixed in respect of land acquired vide Notification dated 12.05.1986. Reliance is placed on the judgments reported in Ashok Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., (2015) 15 SCC 200, Madhusudan Kabra & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2018) 1 SCC 140, Tripat Kaur v. Union of India & Anr, LA Appeal No.749/2008 and Arun Kumar and Others v. Union of India & Ors. (2018) 13 SCC 2222.
57. Per contra, respondents argued that in terms of settled law, in order to assess the market value of an acquired land, first preference has to be given to the sale deeds relating to the market value of village of which the land had been acquired. It is argued that reference to the prices of land of nearby villages can only be made in case no evidence regarding the market value of village of which land had been acquired is available. While, relying upon the sale deeds Ex. R-1 to Ex. R-8, it was argued that same pertained to different parcels of land in village Jasola during the year 1993 which was very close to the date of notification in the year 1995, as such, same provides best evidence for determining true market value of acquired land in question at the time of notification. It is argued that Schedule of market rates in Delhi dated 11.02.1992 Ex. PW 1/15 as relied upon by the petitioners cannot be considered for assessing the market value of land in question as it was neither a residential plot nor a commercial plot.
58. Ld. Counsels for respondents argued that certified copies of sale deeds/lease deeds relied upon by the petitioners Digitally signed AKASH by AKASH JAIN Date:
JAIN 2023.05.24 16:57:36 +0530 LAC No:- 3/20 (Old No:- 01/96) S. S. Aggarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 29 of 50 cannot be considered as the contents of the same were not proved in terms of judgment of P. Ram Reddy & Ors. v. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad & Ors., [1995] 1 SCR 584. Additionally, it was argued that the majority instances of sale deeds/lease deed relied upon by the petitioners pertained to nearby lands which cannot be considered for the purposes of determining actual market value of the acquired land in question. In support of his arguments, Ld. Counsels for respondents relied upon the judgment of Kanwar Singh & Ors. v. Union of India, AIR 1999 SCC 317, wherein it was held as under:-
".... So far as the first argument that the appellants ought to have been given the same rate of compensation which was given to the claimants of the adjoining village is concerned, the amount of compensation for the land acquired depends on the market value of land on the date of immediately before the notification under Section 4 of the Act or when same land is acquired and offer of compensation is made through an Award, whether such an offer of compensation represent the market value of the land on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, has to be determine on the basis of evidence produced before the Court. The claimants have to prove and demonstrate that the compensation offered by the Collector is not adequate and the same does not reflect the true market value of the land on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. This could only be done by the claimants by adducing evidence to the effect that on the relevant date, the market value of the land in question was such at which the vendor and the vendee (buyer and seller) were willing to sell or purchase the land. The consideration in terms of price received for land under bona fide transactions on the date or preceding the date of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act generally shows the market Value of the acquired land and the market value of the acquired land to be assessed in terms of those transactions. Sale instances showing the price fetched for similar land with similar advantages under bonafide transaction of sale at or near about the issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act is well recognized to be the appropriate evidence for determining the market value of the acquired land.
The contention of appellants' counsel that appellants deserved to be awarded the same rate of compensation as it Digitally signed AKASH by AKASH JAIN Date:
JAIN 2023.05.24 16:57:42 +0530 LAC No:- 3/20 (Old No:- 01/96) S. S. Aggarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 30 of 50 was awarded to the claimants of village Masoodpur and Mahipalpur, in the present facts and circumstances of the case, is not tenable. If we go by the compensation awarded to claimants of adjoining village it would not lead to the correct assessment of market value of the land acquired in the village Rangpuri. For example village 'A' adjoins village 'B', village B adjoins village 'C', village 'G' adjoins village 'D', so on and so forth and in that process the entire Delhi would be covered. Generally mere would be different situation and potentiality of the land situated in two different villages unless it is proved that the situation and potentiality of the land in two different villages are the same...."
Admissibility of sale deeds relied upon by respondents
59. So far as argument of Ld. Counsels for respondents regarding reliance upon sale deeds Ex. R-1 to Ex. R-8 is concerned, it was contended on behalf of petitioners that all these sale deeds were apparently executed on the same date i.e. 22.03.1993 and pertained to land parcels which were already subject matter of acquisition proceedings. Thus, these sale deeds cannot be considered to represent true market value of the land in question. Nothing substantial could be brought on record on behalf of respondents to traverse the claims of the petitioners.
60. Even otherwise, the afore-said sale deeds Ex. R-1 to Ex. R-8 are only photocopies of the sale deeds, which are not admissible as evidence under Section 51A of the Act. In the case of Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal Revenue Officer v. Narasaiah, (2001) 3 SCC 530, Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the object of inserting Section 51A in the Act by way of amendment by holding as under:-
".... If the position regarding admissibility of the contents of a document which is a certified copy falling within the purview of Section 57(5) of the Registration Act was as adumbrated above, even before the introduction of Section AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN LAC No:- 3/20 (Old No:- 01/96) JAIN S. S. Date: 2023.05.24 16:57:48 +0530 Aggarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 31 of 50 51-A in the LA Act, could there be any legislative object in incorporating the said new provision through Act 68 of 1984? It must be remembered that the State has the burden to prove the market value of the lands acquired by it for which the State may have to depend upon the prices of lands similarly situate which were transacted or sold in the recent past, particularly those lands situated in the neighbouring areas The practice had shown that for the State officials it was a burden to trace out the persons connected with such transactions mentioned in the sale deeds and then to examine them in count for the purpose of proving such transactions. It was in the wake of the aforesaid practical difficulties that the new Section 51-A was introduced in the LA Act. When the section says that certified copy of a registered document "may be accepted as evidence of the transaction recorded in such document" it enables the court to treat what is recorded in the document, in respect of the transactions referred to therein, as evidence....
.... The words "may be accepted as evidence" in the section indicate that there is no compulsion on the court to accept such transaction as evidence, but it is open to the court to treat them as evidence. Merely accepting them as evidence does not mean that the count is bound to treat them as reliable evidence What is sought to be achieved is that the transactions recorded in the document may be treated as evidence, just like any other evidence, and it is for the court to weigh all the pros and cons to decide whether such transaction can be relied on for understanding the real price of the land concerned...."
(emphasis supplied)
61. In the present case the copies of sale deeds relied upon by the respondents are merely photocopies and not even the certified copies, as such, the same are not worth consideration. For the sake of arguments, even if certified copies of such sale deeds are adduced on record by the respondents, in terms of ratio of V. Narasaiah(supra), there is no compulsion on the Court to accept such transaction as evidence as it is already discussed above that the said sale deeds depicted sale of land which was already under acquisition. Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN AKASH Date:
JAIN 2023.05.24
16:57:54
+0530
LAC No:- 3/20 (Old No:- 01/96) S. S. Aggarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 32 of 50
62. Moreover, in the judgment of Ram Chander & Ors. (supra), the market value of land in revenue estate of Jasola as on 1979 was finally fixed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India @ Rs.2,240/- per sq. yards. Thus, to say that market value of land in question be determined in terms of purported sale deeds Ex. R-1 to Ex. R-8 executed in the year 1993 @ Rs. 85/- (approx.) per sq. yards would be ludicrous.
63. In the case of Lal Chand v. Union of India, AIR 2010 SC 170, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that if the petitioners produce satisfactory evidence either in form of contemporaneous sale deeds or awards in respect of acquisition of comparable land to show that market value of acquired land in question was much higher, the sale deed relied upon by respondents showing lesser value may be inferred to be undervalued and have to be excluded for consideration. The relevant excerpt from the judgment is reproduced as under:-
".... 30. This takes us to the value of "undervalued" sale deeds. When the respondents rely upon certain sale deeds to justify the value determined by the Land Acquisition Collector or to show that the market value was less than what is claimed by the claimants, and if the claimants produce satisfactory evidence (which may be either with reference to contemporaneous sale deeds or awards made in respect of acquisition of comparable land or by other acceptable evidence) to show that the market value was much higher, the sale deed relied upon by the respondents showing a lesser value may be inferred to be undervalued, or not showing the true value. Such deeds have to be excluded from consideration as being unreliable evidence. A document which is found to be undervalued cannot be used as evidence...."
64. Thus, the sale deeds Ex. R1 to R8, as relied upon by AKASH Digitally AKASH JAIN signed by LAC No:- 3/20 (Old No:- 01/96) JAIN Date: 2023.05.24 16:58:01 +0530 S. S. Aggarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 33 of 50 the respondents cannot be considered for determining market value of land in question as they are abysmally undervalued and are also inadmissible in evidence being photocopies.
Potentiality of land in question
65. In the case of Anar Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1985 SC 298, Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed that potential value, location and situation of both village Bahapur and village Jasola is similar as both these villages are adjacent and quite close to each other. As already discussed above, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Bhola Nath Sharma (dead) by LRs. & Anr(supra) had finally determined market value of land of village Bahapur as Rs. 2,000/- per sq. yards as on 30.06.1978. While placing reliance upon the aforesaid case and the case of Anar Singh(supra), Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ram Chander & Ors.(supra), considered that the land of village Jasola is similarly situated as that of land situated in village Bahapur and while granting appreciation @ 12% per annum from 30.06.1978, held the fair market value of land situated in village Jasola as on 15.06.1979 would be Rs. 2,240/- per sq. yards. This judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court is upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram Chander (deceased) through LRs v. Union of India in Civil Appeal No. 2928/2022 decided on 20.04.2022. Thus, the market value of land situated in village Jasola as on 15.06.1979 is finally settled @ Rs.2,240/- per sq. yards.
66. Now, comes the question as to whether acquired land AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2023.05.24 16:58:07 +0530 LAC No:- 3/20 (Old No:- 01/96) S. S. Aggarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 34 of 50 in this case could have fetched a sum to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- per sq. yards on the relevant date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, as claimed by the petitioners.
67. In the case of Bhag Singh & Ors. v. Union of Territory Chandigarh, 1985 AIR 1576, 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 949, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was pleased to hold that where land is acquired under the Act, it would not be fair and just to deprive the holder of his land without payment of the true market value when the law in so many terms, declares that he shall be paid such market value.
68. In the case of The Collector, Raigarh v. Dr. Harisingh Thakur & another, (1979) 1 SCC 236, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was pleased to hold that:-
".... The question as to whether a land has potential value as a building site or not is primarily one of fact depending upon several factors such as its condition and situation, the user to which it is put or is reasonably capable of being put, its suitability for building purposes, its proximity to residential, commercial and industrial areas and educational, cultural or medical institutions, existing amenities like water, electricity and drainage and the possibility of their future extension, whether the nearby town is a developing or a prospering town with prospects of development schemes and the presence or absence of pressure of building activity towards the land acquired or in the neighbourhood thereof...."
69. In Mahabir Prasad Santuka and others vs. Collector, Cuttack and others (1987) 1 SCC 587, Hon'ble Apex Court observed:-
".... when land is situated near industrial area, value of adjacent land was bound to increase manifold, which factor was duly taken into consideration in the said decision, when AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2023.05.24 16:58:18 +0530 LAC No:- 3/20 (Old No:- 01/96) S. S. Aggarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 35 of 50 potential value of the acquired land in the said case was taken as fit for industrial purposes though it was being used as agricultural land...."
70. Further, in the case of P. Ram Reddy and others vs Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad and others, (1995) 2 SCC 305 on the question whether building potentiality of the land acquired under the Act requires to be taken into consideration in determining its market value and if so, manner in which it has to be done, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:-
".... Market value of land acquired under the LA Act is the main component of the amount of compensation awardable for such land under Section 23(1) of the LA Act. The market value of such land must relate to the last of the dates of publication of notification or giving of public notice of substance of such notification according to Section 4(1) of the LA Act. Such market value of the acquired land cannot only be its value with reference to the actual use to which it was put on the relevant date envisaged under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, but ought to be its value with reference to the better use to which it is reasonable capable of being put in the immediate or near future. Possibility of the acquired land put to certain use on the date envisaged under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, becoming available for better use in the immediate of near future, is regarded as its potentiality. It is for this reason that the market value of the acquired land when has to be determined with reference to the date envisaged under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, the same has to be done not merely with reference to the use to which it was put on such date, but also on the possibility of it becoming available in the immediate or near future for better use. i.e. on its potentiality When the acquired land has the potentiality of being use for building purposes in the immediate or near future it is such potentiality which is regarded as building potentiality of the acquired land Therefore, if the acquired land has the building potentiality, its value, like the value of any her potentiality of the land should necessarily be taken into account for determining the market value of such land Therefore, when a land with building potentiality is acquired, the price which its willing seller could reasonable expect to obtain from its willing purchaser with reference to the date envisaged under Section 4(1) of the LA Act. ought to AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2023.05.24 16:58:25 +0530 LAC No:- 3/20 (Old No:- 01/96) S. S. Aggarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 36 of 50 necessarily include that portion of the price of the land attributable to its building potentiality. Such price of the acquired land then becomes its market value envisaged under Section 23(1) of the LA Act...."
(emphasis supplied)
71. In Hasanali Walimchand (dead) by LRs vs. State of Maharashtra, (1998) 2 SCC 388, future potential of acquired land on account of its location was taken into consideration in holding that the acquired land did have future potential on account of its location since the area around city of Ahmednagar was fast developing and the land in question was located only at a short distance of about one and a half miles from Ahmednagar town.
72. Furthermore, in the case of Union of India and others v. Ajit Singh, AIR 1997 SC 2669, the land was situated in the developed area and very near to developed localities. It was held that it possessed potential value for being used for building purposes and was evaluated as such.
73. In the case of Om Prakash v. State of Haryana, Civil Appeal No. 3677 OF 2010, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was pleased to hold following:-
"..... Be that as it may, we must assume that the landowners were entitled to the compensation fixed by the High Court on the date of the award of the Collector and had this amount been made available to the landowners on that date, it would have been possible for them to rehabilitate their holdings in some other place. This exercise has been defeated for the simple reason that the payment of compensation has been spread over almost two decades. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that a landowner is entitled to say that if the compensation proceedings continued over a period of almost 20 years as in the present case, the potential of the AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2023.05.24 16:58:31 +0530 LAC No:- 3/20 (Old No:- 01/96) S. S. Aggarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 37 of 50 land acquired from him must also be adjudged keeping in view the development in the area spread over the period of 20 years if the evidence so permits and cannot be limited to the near future alone. We, therefore, feel that in the circumstances, the appellants herein were fully entitled to say that the potential of the acquired land had not been fully recognized by the High Court or by the Reference Court. We must add a word of caution here and emphasize that this broad principle would be applicable where the possession of the land has been taken pursuant to proceedings under an acquiring Act and not to those cases where land is already in possession of the Government and is subsequently acquired....."
(emphasis supplied)
74. Thus, market value of the acquired land cannot only be its value with reference to the actual use to which it was put to on the relevant date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, but ought to be the value with reference to better use to which it is reasonably capable of being put in the immediate or near future. Moreover, the proximity of a land to residential, commercial, industrial areas, educational or medical institutes is also to bound increase its value for the purpose of determining the compensation.
75. In the present case, revenue estate of Jasola as a whole was declared as urban on 28.5.1966 and was declared as development area in the year 1974. Four successive acquisitions took place and as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the year 1995, it was a fully developed area on which already stood Sukhdev Vihar, Ishwar Nagar, Jasola DDA Flats/colony, Apollo Hospital, Harkesh Nagar, Sarita Vihar, part of Mohan Co-operative Industrial area, Okhla Industrial Area Part-II and New Friends Colony. There is thus, no manner of doubt that the land in question prior to as well as at the time of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act had a great potential not only as a AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2023.05.24 16:58:37 +0530 LAC No:- 3/20 (Old No:- 01/96) S. S. Aggarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 38 of 50 site for residential buildings but also for commercial and industrial development, which aspect cannot be ignored for the purposes of determining compensation.
Calculation of escalation in prices of land
76. It is well settled that for the purposes of determining market value of acquired land, Court may provide appropriate escalation over the true market value of nearby lands in previous years. In the case of ONGC Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel, (2008) 14 SCC 745, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was pleased to grant cumulative rate of escalation of 7.5% over the settled market price of land to the claimants. It further observed as under:-
".... 11. Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature of development in surrounding area, availability of land for development in the area, and the demand for land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, without any sudden spurts or jumps. On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster, where the demand for land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas. In some pockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any development and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it, that is about 5% to 7.5% per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN LAC No:- 3/20 (Old No:- 01/96) Date: 2023.05.24 JAINS. S. Aggarwal 16:58:43 +0530 & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 39 of 50 applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be applied would depend upon the same.
12. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved market value of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisition), where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably safe where the relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitions precedes the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is upto four to five years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard if the gap is only a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example, for determining the market value of a land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the `rate' of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increase.
13. Much more unsafe is the recent trend to determine the market value of acquired lands with reference to future sale transactions or acquisitions. To illustrate, if the market value of a land acquired in 1992 has to be determined and if there are no sale transactions/acquisitions of 1991 or 1992 (prior to the date of preliminary notification), the statistics relating to sales/acquisitions in future, say of the years 1994-95 or 1995-96 are taken as the base price and the market value in 1992 is worked back by making deductions at the rate of 10% to 15% per annum. How far is this safe? One of the fundamental principles of valuation is that the transactions subsequent to the acquisition should be ignored for determining the market value of acquired lands, as the very acquisition and the consequential development would accelerate the overall development of the surrounding areas resulting in a sudden or steep spurt in the prices. Let us illustrate. Let us assume there was no development activity in a particular area. The appreciation in market price in such area would be slow and minimal. But if some lands in that area are acquired for a residential/commercial/industrial layout, there will be all round development and improvement in the infrastructure/ amenities/facilities in the next one or two years, as a result of which the surrounding lands will Digitally signed AKASH by AKASH JAIN Date:
JAIN 2023.05.24 16:58:49 +0530 LAC No:- 3/20 (Old No:- 01/96) S. S. Aggarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 40 of 50 become more valuable. Even if there is no actual improvement in infrastructure, the potential and possibility of improvement on account of the proposed residential/commercial/ industrial layout will result in a higher rate of escalation in prices. As a result, if the annual increase in market value was around 10% per annum before the acquisition, the annual increase of market value of lands in the areas neighbouring the acquired land, will become much more, say 20% to 30%, or even more on account of the development/proposed development. Therefore, if the percentage to be added with reference to previous acquisitions/sale transactions is 10% per annum, the percentage to be deducted to arrive at a market value with reference to future acquisitions/sale transactions should not be 10% per annum, but much more. The percentage of standard increase becomes unreliable. Courts should therefore avoid determination of market value with reference to subsequent/future transactions. Even if it becomes inevitable, there should be greater caution in applying the prices fetched for transactions in future. Be that as it may.
14. In this case, the acquisition was in a rural area. There was no evidence of any out-of-ordinary developments or increases in prices in the area. We are of the view that providing an escalation of 7.5% per annum over the 1987 price under Ex.15, would be sufficient and appropriate to arrive at the market value of acquired lands. Whether the increase should be at a cumulative rate or a flat rate?
15. The increase in market value is calculated with reference to the market value during the immediate preceding year.
When market value is sought to be ascertained with reference to a transaction which took place some years before the acquisition, the method adopted is to calculate the year to year increase. As the percentage of increase is always with reference to the previous year's market value, the appropriate method is to calculate the increase cumulatively and not applying a flat rate. The difference between the two methods is shown by the following illustration (with reference to a 10% increase over a basic price of Rs.10/- per sq.m):
Year By flat rate increase method By cumulative increase method 1987 10.00 10.00 (Base Year) 1988 10 + 1= 11.00 10.00 + 1.00 = 11.00 1989 11 + 1= 12.00 11.00 + 1.10= 12.10 1990 12 + 1= 13.00 12.10 + 1.21= 13.31 1991 13 + 1= 14.00 13.31 + 1.33 = 14.64 1992 14 + 1= 15.00 14.64 + 1.46 = 16.10
16. We may also point out that application of a flat rate will AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN LAC No:- 3/20 (Old No:- 01/96) JAINS. S. Aggarwal Date: 2023.05.24 16:58:54 +0530 & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 41 of 50 lead to anomalous results. This may be demonstrated with further reference to the above illustration. In regard to the sale transaction in 1987, where the price was Rs.10 per sq.m, if the annual increase to be applied is a flat rate of 10%, the increase will be Rs.1 per annum during each of the five years 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992. If the price increase is to be determined with reference to sale transaction of the year 1989 when the price was Rs.12 per sq.m, the flat rate increase will be Rs.1.20 per annum, for the years 1990, 1991 and 1992. If the price increase is determined with reference to a sale transaction of the year 1990 when the price was Rs.13 per sq.m, then the flat rate increase will be Rs.1.30 per annum for the years 1991 and 1992. It will thus be seen that even if the percentage of increase is constant, the application of a flat rate leads to different amounts being added depending upon the market value in the base year. On the other hand, the cumulative rate method will lead to consistency and more realistic results. Whether the base price is Rs.10/- or Rs.12/10 or Rs.13/31, the increase will lead to the same result. The logical, practical and appropriate method is therefore to apply the increase cumulatively and not at a flat rate...."
(emphasis supplied)
77. The aforesaid judgment was relied upon by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ashok Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., (2015) 15 SCC 200 and escalation @ 12% p.a. was awarded by the Court with cumulative effect from the date of earlier acquisition to the claimants.
78. In the case of Madhusudan Kabra & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2018) 1 SCC 140, Hon'ble Supreme Court granted 15% p.a. compounding rate on the exemplar. Hon'ble Delhi High Court further in the case of Tripat Kaur v. Union of India & Anr, LA Appeal No.749/2008, while placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgments permitted annual increase on the exemplar @ 15% at compounding rate to the claimants.
79. Moreover, in the case of Arun Kumar and Others v.
AKASH Digitally signed
by AKASH JAIN
LAC No:- 3/20 (Old No:- 01/96)
JAIN Date: 2023.05.24
16:59:01 +0530
S. S. Aggarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 42 of 50 Union of India & Ors. (2018) 13 SCC 2222, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was pleased to allow enhancement in compensation of acquired land calculated on the basis of 15% increase on cumulative basis.
80. While, relying upon the aforesaid judgments, it is argued by Ld. Counsel that petitioners are entitled to the cumulative increase @ 15% on Rs.2,240/- per sq. yard from 15.06.1979, which was the compensation fixed in respect of land acquired vide notification dated 15.06.1979 or in the alternative @ 15% on Rs.3,808/- per sq. yards from 12.05.1986, which was the compensation fixed in respect of land acquired vide Notification dated 12.05.1986.
81. By virtue of judgments in ONGC Ltd(supra), Ashok Kumar & Ors.(supra), Madhusudan Kabra & Ors.(supra), Tripat Kaur(supra) and Arun Kumar and Others(supra), Hon'ble Superior Courts had clearly recognized and acknowledged calculation of market value of land at cumulative rate which leads to more consistent results as against method of flat rate. The question though remains as to the quantum at which such cumulative increase has to be permitted. No doubt, in some of the aforementioned cases Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Hon'ble Delhi High Court had permitted escalation @ 15% per annum cumulatively from the date of last award, however, the said judgments were passed in peculiar facts and circumstances of each case and it was nowhere held in those judgments that in all other cases a petitioner is entitled to escalation @ 15% per annum cumulatively from the date of the last award.
Digitally signedAKASH by AKASH JAIN Date:
JAIN 2023.05.24 16:59:07 +0530 LAC No:- 3/20 (Old No:- 01/96) S. S. Aggarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 43 of 50
82. It is well settled that recourse to the mode of determining market value of an acquired land by providing appropriate escalation over the proved market value of nearby lands in previous years is usually taken when there is no evidence of contemporaneous sale transactions or awards of comparable lands in the neighborhood. The said method is considered to be safe when the sale transactions/awards relied upon by the petitioners precede the subject acquisition by only a few years, i.e. upto 4 to 5 years. Beyond that it is held to be unsafe, even if it relates to neighbouring lands as over the course of years, the rate of annual increase may undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurt in prices affecting the very standard of increase. Moreover, it is also unsafe to determine market value of land with reference to future sale transactions or acquisitions.
83. In the present case, the petitioners are primarily relying upon the judgment passed in the case of Ram Chander & Ors.(supra) which finally settled the fair market value of similarly situated land in village Jasola @ Rs. 2,240/- in the year 1979. It is argued that by taking 1979 as a base year and permitting cumulative annual escalation on the same @ 15% per annum, the fair market value of acquired land in question can be determined.
84. However, in lieu of ratio of judgment of ONGC Ltd. (supra), the method of determining market value of acquired land by providing appropriate escalation over the proved market value of nearby lands beyond 5 years preceding the subject acquisition would not be safe. The land in question in the present case was AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2023.05.24 16:59:14 +0530 LAC No:- 3/20 (Old No:- 01/96) S. S. Aggarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 44 of 50 acquired in the year 1995 and if cumulative increase @ 15% per annum from 15.06.1979 (@ Rs. 2,240/- per sq. yards) to 06.01.1995 (i.e. the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act) is permitted, the market value of acquired land in question will work out to be Rs. 20,958/- per sq. yards which is unusually high and not appears to be representative of fair market value of land in question on the relevant date of notification. No substantial evidence could otherwise be brought on record by the petitioners to prove escalation in the market value of land in question @ Rs.20,958/- on the date of notification and the same is not even demanded by them, as they had limited their claims qua acquired land upto Rs. 10,000/- per sq. yards (maximum).
85. Ld. Counsel for petitioners has alternatively placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Ld. Reference Court in LAC No. 75/2011 titled as Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India & Ors. i.e. Ex. PW 1/13 which pertained to notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 12.05.1986 qua land falling in revenue estate of Jasola. Vide judgment dated 02.08.2011, Ld. Reference Court, while relying upon the judgment of Nain Singh v. Union of India, RFA No. 667/1998 decided on 30.11.1998 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court [which was based on the judgment of Ram Chander & Ors.(supra)] was pleased to determine market value of similarly situated land in Jasola as on 12.05.1986 @ Rs. 3,808/- per sq. yards.
86. Ld. Counsel for petitioners further relied upon the certified copy of judgment and decree dated 16.03.2005 in LAC No. 16/1999 in the matter of Kishan Lal & Ors. v. Union of India AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN LAC No:- 3/20 (Old No:- 01/96) JAIN Date: 2023.05.24 16:59:20 +0530 S. S. Aggarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 45 of 50 & Anr. Ex. PW 1/21 and certified copies of proceedings, reply, affidavits in Execution Petition No. 20/14 in the aforesaid matter as Ex. PW 1/22 and Ex. PW 1/23 (colly). The aforesaid reference petition pertained to same award no. 10/95-96 of village Jasola as the one in present case. Vide judgment dated 16.03.2005, Ld. Reference Court had determined market value of land in question in village Jasola @ Rs. 7,390/- per sq. yards as on 06.01.1995 i.e. the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. It is argued that neither UOI nor DDA challenged the said judgment in appeal and the applicants therein also received compensation at aforesaid rates from the Government in the execution proceedings i.e. Ex. No. 20/14. It is thus, prayed that petitioners herein cannot be granted compensation qua acquired land in question less than Rs. 7,390/- per sq. yards.
87. It could be argued on behalf of respondents that the aforesaid judgment in Kishan Lal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. Ex. PW 1/21 was passed by the Court of then Ld. ADJ on the basis of the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 21.02.2003 in S. S. Aggarwal & Ors. v. Union of India in RFA No. 114/98 and RFA No. 155/98 which had already been set aside by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 02.08.2011 vide Civil Appeal no. 7301-7302 of 2003, Civil Appeal no. 836 of 2004 and Civil Appeal no. 6264-6265 of 2011. However, the said argument would not be tenable in as much as the respondents did not admittedly challenge the said judgment in appeal before Ld. Superior Courts. Moreover, the execution petition no. 20/14 qua aforesaid judgment was filed by the claimants in Court on 22.04.2014 i.e. much after the aforesaid order of Hon'bleDigitally Supreme signed Court of India dated AKASH by AKASH JAIN LAC No:- 3/20 (Old No:- 01/96) JAIN Date: 2023.05.24 16:59:26 +0530 S. S. Aggarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 46 of 50 02.08.2011. The compensation was duly released by the respondents to the claimants therein without any challenge. In these circumstances, the argument of petitioners that they could not be granted compensation qua acquired land in question less than Rs. 7,390/- per sq. yards holds merit.
88. After examining the material adduced on record and settled propositions of law, following factors can be considered by the Court for determining the market value of acquired land in question on the relevant date of notification:-
(a) Market value of similarly situated land in village Jasola being finally settled @ Rs. 2,240/- per sq. yards as on 15.06.1979 in Ram Chander & Ors.(supra);
(b) Market value of similarly situated land in village Jasola being settled @ Rs. 3,808/- per sq. yards as on 12.05.1986 in the case of LAC No. 75/2011 titled as Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India & Ors. i.e. Ex. PW 1/13;
(c) Vide Notification No. F-2(49)/65-LSG dated 28.05.1966 issued under Section 507-A of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957, the Revenue Estate of Village Jasola was declared urbanized;
(d) The acquired land having great potentiality on the date of notification owing to its proximity to posh residential areas, commercial and industrial areas, medical institutes etc;
(e) The certified copy of schedule of market rates in Delhi Ex.
PW 1/15 prescribed minimum land rates for residential plots @ Rs.8,400/- per sq. meter (Rs. 7,245/- per sq. yards) as on 11.02.1992 for Kalkaji which falls in Village Bahapur, which AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN LAC No:- 3/20 (Old No:- 01/96) JAIN Date: 2023.05.24 16:59:32 +0530 S. S. Aggarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 47 of 50 is similarly situated land to the acquired land in question.
89. The above factors are though only indicative and do not provide conclusive evidence qua true and fair market value of acquired land in question on the date of notification. By allowing progressive appreciation year by year @ 12% p.a. from 1979 @ Rs. 2,240/-, the market value of land in question will work out to Rs.13,118/- per sq. yards as on 06.01.1995. By permitting cumulative appreciation @ 15% p.a. in terms of judgments of Madhusudan Kabra & Ors.(supra), Tripat Kaur(supra) and Arun Kumar and Others(supra), the market value of land in question will come out to Rs. 20,958/- approx. per sq. yards as on 06.01.1995. However, it is already discussed above that in terms of judgment of ONGC Ltd.(supra), it is not safe to determine market value of a land by applying the aforesaid method when the gap between sale transaction/acquisition and the notification is more than 4 to 5 years.
90. In the matter of Krishna Yachendra Bahadurvaru v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, City improvement Trust Board, Bangalore & Ors, reported in AIR 1979 SC 869, Hon'ble Apex Court had held that the process of determination of market value in any case must depend largely on evaluation of any imponderables and hence it must necessarily be to some extent a matter of conjecture or guess work.
91. In the absence of contemporaneous sale deeds/awards with respect to acquired land in question on the relevant date of AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2023.05.24 16:59:38 +0530 LAC No:- 3/20 (Old No:- 01/96) S. S. Aggarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 48 of 50 notification under Section 4 of the Act i.e. 06.01.1995, while applying reasonable guess work to balance the equities, it is held that the rate of Rs.7,390/- per sq. yards, which had already been fixed by the Reference Court in the case of Kishan Lal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. in LAC No. 16/1999 Ex. PW 1/21 qua same award no. 10/95-96 with respect to similarly situated land in village Jasola and qua which compensation had already been disbursed to the claimants therein by the Government without protest, is just and fair market value of acquired land in question on the relevant date of notification. Issue no. 3 and 4 are accordingly decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
92. Issue no. 5 Relief Keeping in view the findings as above, the petitioners are held entitled to enhanced compensation @ Rs.7,390/- per sq. yards with respect to the land acquired as mentioned in the statement under Section 19 of the Act to the extent of their respective shares in the acquired land. In addition to the enhanced market value, the petitioners are also held entitled to 30% solatium under Section 23(2) of the Act, in lieu of compulsory acquisition of land. The petitioners are also held entitled to additional amount under Section 23(1A) of the Act @ 12% per annum on the market value from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act to the date of award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. The petitioners are also held entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on enhanced amount awarded by the AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2023.05.24 16:59:45 +0530 LAC No:- 3/20 (Old No:- 01/96) S. S. Aggarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 49 of 50 Court from the date of possession of land for a period upto one year and 15% per annum thereafter till amount is deposited in the Court under Section 28 of the Act. The petitioners are also held entitled to other benefits allowed in the Award by LAC.
93. The reference petition stands answered accordingly. Both the sides will bear their own costs. Memo of costs be drawn. A copy of this Award be sent to Land Acquisition Collector, South- East District, Delhi, for information and necessary compliance.
94. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by
AKASH AKASH JAIN
Date:
JAIN 2023.05.24
16:59:53
+0530
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN (AKASH JAIN)
COURT ON 24.05.2023 ADJ-01, SOUTH-EAST
SAKET, NEW DELHI
This judgment contains 50 pages and each paper is signed by me.
Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN AKASH Date:
JAIN 2023.05.24
16:59:59
+0530
(AKASH JAIN)
ADJ-01, SOUTH-EAST
SAKET, NEW DELHI
LAC No:- 3/20 (Old No:- 01/96) S. S. Aggarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. Page No. 50 of 50