Delhi District Court
Ajit Singh (2505-06) vs Union Of India (Kirari Suleman Nager) on 18 October, 2023
IN THE COURT OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE -01 + MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH WEST :
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED BY SH. GAGANDEEP JINDAL
==================================================
UID No. DLNW01-001066-2013 LAC No. 459/16 (New) LAC No. 7A/2013 (Old) In the matter of :
1. Sh. Ajit Singh S/o Sh. Sube Singh R/o Village Kirari Suleman Nagar, Nithari, Delhi.
...... Petitioner Vs.
1. Union of India Through Secretary, Land and Building Department, Vikas Bhawan, ITO, Delhi.
2. Delhi Development Authority Through its Vice Chairman Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi .....Respondents Village Kirari Suleman Nagar (Patti Nithari) Notification U/s 4 of F.11(19)2001/L&B/LA/20112 L.A. Act, 1894 dt. 21.03.2003 Notification U/s 6 of L. F.11 (20)/2004/L&B/LA/28199 A. Act, 1894 dt. 19.03.2004 Award No. 25/2005-06/DC(N-W) Date of Announcement 06.02.2006 of Award by LAC Date of Receipt of Reference : 30.03.2013 Date on which arguments concluded : 20.09.2023 Date of Decision/Award by court : 18.10.2023 LAC No. 459/2016 Ajit Singh (250506) V. Union of India and Ors.
Page no. 1 of 53 Appearance(s): Sh. M. C. Verma, Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner.
Sh. Rishabh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for Union of India. Sh. Karan Kapur, Ld. Counsel for DDA.
Sh. Parveen, Sr. Assistant for LAC (N-W).
REFERENCE PETITION UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 J U D G M E N T / AWAR D (Under Section 26 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894)
1. This is a reference petition u/s 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), filed by the petitioner mentioned aforesaid for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector (North-West) (hereinafter called 'the LAC') for acquisition of his land for public purpose. The petition was filed before the LAC and referred to by the Collector for determination of the court.
BRIEF FACTS/ PLEADINGS
2. The brief factual matrix leading to the present petition is that vide notification bearing No. F.11(19)/2001/L&B/LA/20112 dt. 21.03.2003 issued by the Lt. Governor of Delhi under Section 4 of the Act, the Government intended to acquire about 2636 Bigha 18 Biswas of land with its specification mentioned in the notification for public purpose namely 'Rohini Residential Scheme' under the "Planned Development of Delhi".
3. Vide consequent Declaration/notification No. F.11 (20)/2004/L&B/LA/28199 dated 19.03.2004 issued pursuant thereto under Section 6 of the Act, 2636 Bigha 18 Biswas land (as detailed in the statement under Section 19 of the Act), situated in the revenue estate LAC No. 459/2016 Ajit Singh (250506) V. Union of India and Ors.
Page no. 2 of 53 of village Mubarak Pur Dabas, Delhi, was acquired by the Government. The LAC (N/W) after completing all the requisite formalities as provided under the Act, announced the Award bearing no.16 of 2005-06 dated 14.09.2005 u/s 11 of the Act in respect of 2480 bighas 01 biswas out of the aforesaid acquired land and awarded a compensation at the uniform rate of Rs.15,70,000/- per acre (or Rs. 3,27,083.33/- per bigha) for the entire acquired land in addition to other statutory benefits and interests besides liquidated cost for trees, tubewell and borings.
4. The petitioner being owner/bhumidhar of agricultural land comprised in Khasra nos. 8//16 (4-16), 18min (1-02), 23/2 (2-16), 25 (4-
16), 16/5 (3-07), 6min (2-14), 13(4-16), 14(4-16), 17//26(5-11), 17//10 (2-05), 10//25/2(0-14), 18//11 (4-10), 12 (4-16), 19(4-16), 23//3/1(0-02), total area admeasuring 51 Bigha and 17 Biswas situated in the revenue estate of Village Kirari Suleman Nagar (Patti Nithari), Delhi (in short, the said land). The said land has been acquired vide Award no. 25/2005- 06/DC(NW) dated 06.02.2006.
5. The petitioner aggrieved by the market value determined by the LAC, vide the subject award announced on 06.02.2006 while accepting the compensation under protest, challenged the said Award on the grounds as detailed in the reference petition which are summarized as under: -
(i) The ld. LAC has not adopted the correct method of valuation.
The market value as assessed by Land Acquisition Collector is imaginary and based upon the Govt. Policy. The market value of the acquired land and the market value of the construction/ structure can't LAC No. 459/2016 Ajit Singh (250506) V. Union of India and Ors.
Page no. 3 of 53 be fixed on the basis of any such policy of the Government. The market value of the acquired land is to be assessed strictly as provided by law within the purview of Section 23 and 24 of Land Acquisition Act.
(iii) The Land Acquisition Collector have not taken into consideration the future potentiality of the land and should have determined the market value by keeping in view the market value as fixed by the Government for allotment of residential plots/ flats. The Ld. LAC should have adjusted some amount towards the development charges and assessed the market value of the said land accordingly.
(iv) The DDA with the approval of Govt. of India had issued the guidelines through which DDA has increased the rate of alternative plots from Rs. 750/- per sq. yards to Rs. 5,000/- (approx) per sq. yards. Therefore, the said land of the petitioner has higher potential value than is assessed by the Ld. LAC. Further the land of the petitioner is very fertile and leveled and it gives commercial crops 2-3 in a yearand yielded high income for the petitioners, without any depression or defect. Therefore, the said land hardly needs any development to be done to make it fit for use as a developed site and it can be used for industrial, commercial or residential use with very little efforts.
(iv) All the amentities and facilities of life like water, electricity, metalled roads, general market, post office, transport facilities, banking facility, hospitals, Engg. College, schools, telephone exchange, police station are very near to GTK Road, Rohtak Road, Narela Anaj Mandi adjacent to the Narela township which was urbanized in the year 1922 and having LAC No. 459/2016 Ajit Singh (250506) V. Union of India and Ors.
Page no. 4 of 53 commercial as well as Narela industrial area is very near Bawana Industrial Area much prior to the date of notification U/s 4 of the Act but the LAC did not consider this fact while passing the said award.
(v) There are many palatial farm houses in the close vicinity of the revenue estate of Kirari Suleman Nagar (Patti Nithari). The cost of the land of these farmhouses is not less than Rs. 15,000/- sq. yards which also increases the marketable value of the land of the petitioner and the said land is situated on the main road. The LAC, while passing the award, did not assess the correct value of the standing trees.
(vi) Further, the LAC has ignored the future prospects and possibilities of fetching much higher price by the land, other well developed colonies and full approved Industrial areas, etc where the minimum market value of the land is Rs. 10,000/- per sq. yards. Therefore, the compensation according to the value of land should be valued at Rs. 10,000/- per sq. yards which is the fair actual value of land of the land on the date of notification U/s 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act.
(vii) The LAC has also erred in not awarding the compensation for the expenses, loss and injury sustained by the petitioner due to competed change of nature and place of business/ livelihood. The LAC has also not considered the yearly increase of 12% per annum in the value of land between 01.04.2001 to 21.03.2003 i.e. date of policy announced vide order no.F9(20)/L&B/LA/6696 dated 09.08.2001 and the government has also increased the rate of land as 12 % market value of the land prior to the announcement of the above said award however the LAC LAC No. 459/2016 Ajit Singh (250506) V. Union of India and Ors.
Page no. 5 of 53 has not considered the same and the notification U/s 4 of LA Act is a matter of grave concern.
(viii) The petitioner have the tube-well run by diesel/ electric engine in the above said land which was in good condition and working effectively when the possession of the land was taken by the LAC and has grossly erred in not awarding the compensation for boring of the Tube Well and equipment such as pipe, etc. The value of the standing tree in the land of the petitioner is also not assessed.
6. It is stated that in view of these facts and circumstances and keeping in view the consideration of the petitioner, petitioner is claiming market value of Rs. 10,000/- per sq. yds. By placing the land of the petitioner in Category- A alongwith interest in solatium. The petitioner is also claiming interest at the rate of 24% p.a. on enhanced amount of compensation w.e.f. from the date of notification U/s 4 (1) of the LA Act. An alternative plot of reasonable size alongwith the cost of structure/ construction of farm house be granted to the petitioner. The petitioner further claimed the value of tube-well at Rs. 2,00,000/- each. Interest at 24 % p.a. on the amount of compensation withheld by the LAC from the date of award, Rs. 1,00,000/- as damage to standing crop and market value of trees at Rs. 5,000/- each alongwith other statutory benefits be also granted to the petitioner.
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF RESPONDENT NO. 17. Written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent no.1 /UOI and, it is, inter alia, submitted that the notification under Section 4 LAC No. 459/2016 Ajit Singh (250506) V. Union of India and Ors.
Page no. 6 of 53 was passed on 21.03.2003 and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 19.03.2003 and the said land has been acquired for the public purposes i.e. for Planned Development of Delhi. It is submitted that the learned LAC has rightly assessed the market value of the said land keeping in view all the aspects and has assessed the market value after considering the level of development, locality and situation of the area where the said land is situated. The Ld. LAC has assessed the fair market value of the said land by adopting the indicative price fixed by the government of NCT of Delhi @ Rs. 15,70,000 per acre for the year 2001 - 2002 conveyed by the order no. F9(20)/80/L&.B/LA/6696 dated 09.08.2001, which is applicable with effect from 01.04.2001. The Ld. LAC adopted the indicative price fixed by the Government of NCT of Delhi of land falling in "Block A".
8. It is submitted that the ld. LAC has rightly assessed the market value of the said land keeping in view the aspects enumerated under Section 23 and 24 of the Act. All the other averments made in the petition was denied in toto and it has been submitted that the reference filed by the petitioner is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that the reference petition is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed as no ground or reason has been shown by the petitioners for enhancement in the market value of the land which were correctly assessed by the learned LAC.
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF RESPONDENT NO. 29. Respondent No. 2/DDA, the beneficiary of acquired land has also LAC No. 459/2016 Ajit Singh (250506) V. Union of India and Ors.
Page no. 7 of 53 filed a detailed written statement thereby taking preliminary objections and filing reply on merits. It has been contended that the Land Acquisition Collector while making the Award no. 25 of 2005-06 relating to village Kirari Suleman Nagar (Patti Nithari) had taken into consideration the market value of the land on the basis of sale deeds of adjoining lands of the area as well as all documents which were made available and produced before him and has also taken into consideration the existence of other appurtenances, amenities and facilities while assessing the compensation. It is also submitted that the amount awarded by LAC is adequate, sufficient, just and legal and it is made on the basis of cogent and reliable evidence and there is no scope for enhancing of the amount of compensation. It has been submitted that the present reference petition is barred by limitation and the same is not maintainable.
10. It has further been submitted that compensation has been awarded by LAC after taking into consideration all the factors relevant for determining the compensation and as such the petitioner is not entitled for any enhancement of compensation. The respondent no.2 while raising the issue of limitation, has also averred that it is not liable to pay any interest for the delayed period as the Land & Building Department, Union of India was required to send the reference to the Reference Court within 60 days of its filing. While clarifying that the possession of Khasras, khasra nos. 8//16 (4-16), 18 Min (1-02), 23/2 (2-
16), 25 (4-16), 16//5 (3-07), 6 Min (2-14), 13 (4-16), 14 (4-16), 17//26 Min (5-11), 18//11 (4-10) 12 (4-16), 19 (4-16) and 17//10 Min (2-05) was transferred from L&B/LAC on 13.10.2006. Whereas, the possession of LAC No. 459/2016 Ajit Singh (250506) V. Union of India and Ors.
Page no. 8 of 53 Khasra No. 10//25/2(0-14) and 23//3/1 (0-02) could not be taken due to built-up.
11. It is pleaded that the contents of the petitioner and grounds except specifically admitted are wrong and denied and the petitioner be put under strict proof to the allegations and content in the reference petition. It is denied that the market value assessed by the LAC does not represent the fair and actual market value of the said land as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. All of the contents of the petition are denied in toto. It has been prayed that the present petition is liable to be dismissed with costs.
ISSUES
12. After completion of pleadings, following issues were framed on 10.12.2013 :
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the enhancement in compensation, if so, to what extent?
2. Relief.
PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE
13. Petitioner has examined himself as PW-1 and has deposed in terms of evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A and has relied upon the following documents :
i) Copy of perpetual lease dated 28.02.1999 executed in favour of Sh. Puran S/o Sh. Raj Singh in respect of Plot No. 2, Pocket-11A, Sector-22, Rohini, Delhi as Mark A.
ii) Copy of perpetual lease dated 11.05.2000 executed in favour of Sh. Ranvir Singh S/o Late Sh. Kehri & Ors in respect of Plot No. 46, Pocket-11A, Sector-22, Rohini, Delhi is Mark B. LAC No. 459/2016 Ajit Singh (250506) V. Union of India and Ors.
Page no. 9 of 53
iii) Allotment Letter dated 01.03.1997 in respect of Plot No. 115, Pocket-4, Sector-21, Rohini, Delhi as Mark C.
iv) Copy of perpetual lease dated 09.03.1999 executed in favour of Sh. Zile Singh S/o Sh. Chhajju & Ors in respect of Plot No. 34, Pocket-16, Sector-20, Rohini, Delhi is Mark D.
v) Copy of RTI application dated 09.06.2011 filed by Sh. Praveen Kumar before DDA is Mark E.
vi) Photocopy of allotment letter dated 25.04.2000 in favour of M/s Saroj Engineering Works in respect of an alternate industrial plot measuring 100 sq. meter allotted by DSIDC is Mark-F.
vii) Photocopy of allotment letter dated 23.10.2000 in favour of M/s Rathore Enterprises in respect of an alternate industrial plot measuring 250 sq. meter allotted by DSIDC is Mark G.
viii) Copy of provisional certificate of regularization of colony Baljit Vihar, Nithar Extn. Dated 17.09.2008 issued by Urban Development Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi as Mark H.
ix) Copy of provisional certificate of regularization of Colony Agar Nagar, Prem Nagar-III, dated 17.09.2008 issued by urban Development Deparment, Govt. of NCT of Delhi is Mark I.
x) Copy of provisional certificte of regularization of colony Ender Enclave, Kirari dated 17.09.2008 issued by Urban Development Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi as Mark J.
xi) Copy of Sale Deed dated 12.11.1999 of Village Mundka as Mark K.
xii) Copy of Sale Deed dated 05.10.2004 of Village Mundka as Mark L.
xiii) Copy of Sale Deed dated 20.09.2000 of Village Hirankudna as Mark M.
xiv) Copy of Sale Deed dated 05.08.2003 of Village Hirankudna as Mark N.
xv) Copy of Sale Deed dated 08.08.2003 of Village Sawda as Mark O. xvi) Copy of Sale Deed dated 29.03.2004 of Village Sawda as Mark P. xvii) Copy of Sale Deed dated 16.03.2005 of Village Madanpur Dabas as Mark Q. xviii) Copy of the letter dated 03.05.1990 of fixation of minimum price of agricultural land in Union Territory of Delhi by GNCT as Mark R. xix) Copy of the letter dated 25.07.1997 of fixation of minimum price of agricultural land in Union Territory of Delhi by GNCT as Mark S. xx) Copy of the letter dated 09.08.2001 of fixation of minimum price LAC No. 459/2016 Ajit Singh (250506) V. Union of India and Ors.
Page no. 10 of 53 of agricultural land in Union Territory of Delhi by GNCT as Mark T. xxi) Copy of the letter dated 10.09.2001 of fixation of minimum price of agricultural land in Union Territory of Delhi by GNCT as Mark U. xxii) Copy of the letter dated 24.01.2008 of fixation of minimum price of agricultural land in Union Territory of Delhi by GNCT as Mark V. xxiii) Copy of the letter dated 09.08.2001 of fixation of minimum price of agricultural land in Union Territory of Delhi by GNCT as Mark W. xxiv) Copy of notification bearing no.
F1(281)/REG.BR/HQ/DIV.Com./09/45 dated 04.02.2011 as Mark X.
14. During his cross-examination, witness disclosed that the land in question was being used for agricultural purpose. The document Mark A to Mark D pertains to the residential plot situated in Rohini. He admitted that the document Mark G pertained to industrial plot. The village Mundka touched the boundary of village Nithari and the village Hirankudna and Sawada are 1 or 1 ½ kms away from village Nithari. Village Mubarakpur Dabas is adjacent to village Nithari. He could not tell whether the purchaser of land covered in the sale transaction from Mark A to Mark Q are being used for agricultural purpose or not.
15. PW-2 Sh. Vijender S/o Sh. Ishwar Singh, Kanoongo from the office of Land and Building Department, Vikas Bhawan, ITO, New Delhi has brought the summoned record i.e. policy letters dated 03.05.1990, 25.07.1997, 24.09.1998, 09.08.2001, 11.09.2001 and 24.01.2008 are all attested by the competent authority i.e. Superintendent, LA Land and Building Department, Vikas Bhawan, Government of NCT, Delhi which are marked as Mark R, Mark S, Mark LAC No. 459/2016 Ajit Singh (250506) V. Union of India and Ors.
Page no. 11 of 53 T, Mark U, Mark V and Mark W. The same were then exhibited as Ex. PW 2/2, Ex. PW 2/3, Ex. PW 2/4, Ex. PW 2/5 and Ex. PW 2/6 respectively. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he had no personal knowledge about the said policies.
16. Pw-3 Sh. Deshbandhu Gosain S/o Sh. V. S. Gosain, UDC, from the office of Sub Registrar-II, Basai Darapur, Delhi brought the summoned record i.e. the sale deed vide registration no. 1637, Volume no. 9488, Book No. 1, Page No. 13 to 26 dated 16.02.2000 which is already marked as Mark K and the same is now Ex. PW 3/1 (OSR); the sale deed vide registration no. 24160, Vol. No. 12057, Book No. 1, Page No. 146 to 151 dated 20.10.2004 which is already marked as Mark L and the same is Ex. PW 3/2 (OSR); The sale deed vide Registration no. 9466, Volume No. 9686, Book No. 1, Page No. 131 to 153 dated 21.09.2000 which is marked as Mark M and the same is Ex. PW 3/3 (OSR); The Sale deed bearing registration no. 11424, Volume No. 11052, Book No. 1, Page No. 114 to 131 dated 08.08.2003 which is Mark N and the same is Ex. PW 3/4 (OSR). In the cross-examination, PW-3 deposed that he had no personal knowledge about the said sale deeds.
17. PW4 Sh. Ravinder Chhikara S/o Sh. Nafe Singh, UDC from the office of Sub-Registrar-VIA, Pitampura, Delhi verified the summoned record i.e. the sale deed vide Registration No. 10156, Volume No. 6047, Book No. 1, Page No. 183 to 196 dated 16.03.2005 which is Mark Q and the same is Ex. PW 4/1 (OSR). In the cross-examination, PW-4 deposed that he has been posted in the abovesaid department since February 2013 and that he has no personal knowledge about the abovesaid sale deed.
LAC No. 459/2016Ajit Singh (250506) V. Union of India and Ors.
Page no. 12 of 53
18. PW-5 Sh. Sarjit Singh S/o Sh. Bhim Singh, Halka Patwari of Village Kirari Suleman Nagar, Patti Nithari from the office of SDM Rohini at DC Office, Kanjhawala, Delhi brought on record the summoned record i.e. the Aks-Sirja of Village Kirari Suleman Nagar, Patti Nithari and the Khasra Girdhawari for the year 2005-06. Photocopy of Aks-Sirja is Ex. PW 5/1 (OSR) and photocopy of Kasra Girdhawari for the year 2005-06 is Ex. PW 5/2 (OSR) which were filed that day. He further deposed that Rohtak Road is half kilometer away from Village Nithari. The village Hirankudna is 2 ½ Km away from Village Nithari. The village Sawda is three kilometer away from village Nithari. Sector- 20, 21 and 22 of Rohini, Delhi are adjacent to village Nithari. There are unauthorized colonies in village Nithari namely Agar Nagar Colony. A canal passes through village Nithari and the land of the petitioner comprising in Khasra No. 10//25 and 16//5, 6, 13 and 14 is adjacent to the said canal.
19. During his cross-examination, PW-5 deposed that the Industrial Units in village Mundka and Pooth Kalan are much more than village Nithari. He further revealed that there is no water in the canal and it is arid at present.
20. PW6 Sh. Mahender Pratap Singh Rawat S/o Late Sh. C. S. Rawat, Naib Tehsildar, Office of the Secretary Revenue, 5 Shamnath Marg, Delhi who brought the summoned record i.e. attested copy of notification no. F.1(281)/Regn.Br./HQ/Div.Com./09/45 dated 04.02.2011 regarding minimum (Circle) rate for valuation of land and immovable properties for the purpose of registration under the Registration Act, 1908 in Delhi w.e.f.
LAC No. 459/2016Ajit Singh (250506) V. Union of India and Ors.
Page no. 13 of 53 08.02.2011 as Ex. PW 6/1 (OSR). In his cross-examination, PW-6 stated that he has no knowledge regarding the circle rates. The circle rates had not been prepared in his presence.
21. PW7, Sh. Sanjay Kumar S/o Sh. Dineshwar Rai, LDC from the office of Urban Development Department, Delhi Secretariat, IP Estate, New Delhi brought the summoned record i.e. the attested copy of provisional certificate of regularization for the colony namely Inder Enclave, Phase-II, Kirari having registration no. 58 which is Ex. PW 7/1, attested copy of provisional certificate of regularization for the colony namely Baljeet Vihar, Nithari Extension having registration no. 280, which is Ex. Pw 7/2 and attested copy of provisional certificate of regularization for the colony namely Agar Nagar, Prem Nagar-3 having registration no. 616 which is Ex. PW 7/3. He further stated that they are not in possession of the original certificates of the abovesaid exhibits which were alloted to the representative of the said colonies. In his cross-examination, PW-7 deposed that the colonies under the said exhibits are the provisional certificates which were allotted in the year 2008. He further deposed that he has no personal knowledge.
22. In cross-examination, PW7 testified that he is posted in the office of Sub Registrar IIA since November 2016 and he does not have any personal knowledge about the sale deeds as they were not prepared in his presence.
23. PW-8, Sh. Praveen Rai S/o Late Sh. Nagender Prasad Singh, Division Manager from the office of Relocation DSIIDC, Patparganj LAC No. 459/2016 Ajit Singh (250506) V. Union of India and Ors.
Page no. 14 of 53 Delhi brought on record the attested copy of allotment letter in respect of Plot No. 2990, Sector-J, at Narela Industrial Area measuring 100 sq. meter allotted to M/s Saroj engineering Works alongwith eligibility letter running into 4 pages which is Ex. Pw 8/1 and attested copy of allotment letter in respect of Plot No. 6, Sector-3, Pocket-A at Bawana Industrial Area measuring 250 sq. meter allotted to M/s Rathore Enterprises running into 6 pages which is Ex. PW 8/2.
24. In his cross-examination, PW-8 deposed that the plots were allotted prior development of all the basic amenities after the price of development was included in the said plot. He had been posted in the said office for the last two years therefore, he had no idea whether any industrial land was available in vicinity of Vill. Kirari Suleman Nagar. He admitted that he had no personal knowledge of the said land or the distance between the village Bawana, Narela viz-a-viz village Kirari Suleman Nagar.
25. Sh. Govind Kumar S/o late Sh. K. C. Sharma, Assistant from the office of DDA, (Institution Branch), Room No. 216, A Block, 2 nd Floor, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi who brought the summoned record i.e. allotment of land area measuring 25 acre to Ministry of Civil Aviation, Govt. of India for construction of heliport at Sector-36, Rohini, Delhi which is Ex. PW 9/1 running into 7 pages (OSR). The abovesaid land was allotted @ Rs. 206.60 lakhs per acre (provisional) with annual ground rent @ 2.5% per annum of the total premium vide letter dated 01.06.2009, which was amended vide letter dated 05.06.2009 and the rate of the land was fixed @ Rs. 74.42 lakhs per acre provisional for the LAC No. 459/2016 Ajit Singh (250506) V. Union of India and Ors.
Page no. 15 of 53 year 2007-2008 which works oiut to Rs. 18,60,50,000/- plus ground rent Rs. 46,51,250/- per annum @ 2.5 per annum of total premium. The abovesaid rates are revisable. The possession was handed over to the allottee on 03.07.2009. In his cross-examination, PW-9 deposed that he has not personal knowledge about the Ex. PW 9/1 and that he had been posted in the abovesaid section since December 2012 only.
26. PW-9, Sh. Narender Singh Bhati S/o Sh. Sewa Nand, UDC, from the office of Deputy Director (Lease Administrator), Residential DDA, C-Block, Third Floor, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi brought the summoned record i.e. Demand-cum-Allotment Letter, Perpetual lease, conveyance deed of Plot No. 2, Block-11A, Sector-22, Rohini, Delhi. Photocopies of the same are Ex. PW 9/1 (10 pages) (OSR); Demand-cum-Allotment Letter, Perpetual Lease, Conveyance Deed of Plot No. 46, Pocket-11A, Sector-22, Rohini, Delhi. Photocopies of the same are Ex. PW 9/2 (colly) (13 pages) (OSR); Demand-cum-Allotment Letter, Perpetual Lease, Conveyance Deed of Plot No. 34, Block No. 15, Sector-19, Rohini, Delhi. Photocopies of the same are Ex. PW 9/3 (colly) (13 pages) (OSR); Demand-cum-Allotment Letter, Perpetual Lease, Conveyance Deed of Plot No. 46, Pocket-11A, Sector-22, Rohini, Delhi. Photocopies of the same are Ex. PW 9/4 (colly) (06 pages) (OSR).
27. In his cross-examination, PW-9 deposed that he has no personal knowledge of allotment, lease and conveyance deed. The plots were allotted under alternative allotment scheme after developing the agricultural land by engineering wing of the department.
LAC No. 459/2016Ajit Singh (250506) V. Union of India and Ors.
Page no. 16 of 53 RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE
28. Ld. counsel for Union of India tendered the copy of the award no. 25/2005-2006/DC (N-W) pertaining to village Kirari Suleman Nagar (Patti Nithari) as Ex. R1 on 19.08.2015. On 09.02.2016, Ld. Counsel for UOI also tendered in evidence the certified copy of Sale Deed dated 04.12.2002 as Ex. R-2, certified copy of Agreement to Sell dated 08.04.2002 as Ex. R3 and certified copy of Sale Deed dated 10.04.2002 as Ex. R4 which was objected to by the counsel for petitioner to admissibility and mode of proof.
29. Thereafter, the respondent's evidence was closed on 09.02.2016.
ARGUMENTS OF PETITIONER
30. Shri M. C. Verma, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner is the owner of the said land admeasuring 51 Bigha 17 Biswas situated in the revenue Estate of Village Kirari Suleman Nagar (Patti Nithari). The government intended to acquire the said land for the public purpose namely Rohini Residential Scheme and had issued a notification under Section 4 of the Act on 21.03.2003. The declaration in respect of the said land was made under Section 6 of the Act on 19.03.2004 with regard to the total land measuring area 2636 Bigha and 18 Biswa. Thereafter, Award No. 25/2005-06 was passed. The possession of the said land was taken over by the Government. The LAC has wrongly fixed the market value of the above said land @ Rs. 15,70,000 per acre on the basis of indicative price policy of the government regarding the agricultural land. Aggrieved from the said award, the petitioner has filed the present reference petition LAC No. 459/2016 Ajit Singh (250506) V. Union of India and Ors.
Page no. 17 of 53 under Section 18 of the Act. It is stated that by way of the present petition, the petitioner prayed for fixing the market value @ Rs. 10,000/- per sq. yards.
31. The arguments of Ld. Counsel for the petitioner for canvassing enhancement of market value of acquired agricultural land and opposition thereof can be sub-divided into following categories:
(i) Parity on the basis of sale deeds Mark D to Mark G.
(ii) Market value and sale prices of the industrial/residential plots and flats in the surrounding area allotted by DSIIDC and DDA, including the land allotted for development of Heliport in Rohini.
(iii) Yield Based Assessment or Capitalization of annual rent.
(iv) Indicative Price Policy of the Govt. of NCT and its effects.
32. In support of his contention, the Counsel for petitioner has relied upon judgments:
- GM, ONGC Ltd. v. Sendabhai Vastram Patel, 2005(3) RCR Civil 731;
- Om Prakash(D) through LR's v. Union of India, 2004(3) RCR Civil 726;
- Jai Singh Vs. U.O.I., 135 (2006) DLT 231 (DB);
- Pt. Jai Ram Singh Vs. U.O.I., AIR 1989 Delhi 310;
- Deorao Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2009 (2) LACC222 BOM (DB);
- The State of Maharashtra Vs. Shri Mant Govindrao, 2009 (2) LACC 3399 (BOM).
- Mahesh Duttaray Vs. State of Mahrashtra, 2009 (2) LACC 256 SC.
LAC No. 459/2016Ajit Singh (250506) V. Union of India and Ors.
Page no. 18 of 53
- Atma Singh V. State of Haryana SCC (2008) 2 SCC 568.
- Kasturi & Ors. V. State of Haryana SC Cases (2003) 1 SCC 354.
-Suresh Kumar V. Improvement Trust Bhopal Recent Revenue Reports 1989 (1) 178.
- Revenue Divisional Officer Vs. Shaik Azam Sahib, 2009 (1) LACC
- Radha Mudaliyar Vs. Special Tehsildar, AIR 2011 SC 54
- Udho Dass Vs. State of Haryana, Civil Appeal 3677 of 2010 (SC).
-Sangunthala (Dead) Thr. LR's Vs. Special Tehsildar (2010) 3 SC
661.
- Mahender Singh V. Union of India, LA Appeal 866/2005.
-Jai Singh V. Union of India & Ors. LA Appeal No. 266/08.
33. It is further contended that, without prejudice to the above, the petitioner land also fall in the 'V' shape between Rohtak Road i.e. NH- 10 and G.T. Karnal Road i.e. NH-1. So, the market value of the petitioner land be fixed on the basis of Jai Singh (supra). The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi fixed the market value of village Sanooth and Razapur Kalan @ Rs.19,43,500/- per acre as on 26.01.2003, therefore, the petitioner is also entitled for two months i.e. from 27.01.2003 to 21.03.2003 further increase @ 11.5% upon Rs. 19,43,500/-. This Court had also fixed the market value titled as "Pardeep Mathur Vs. Union of India & Ors." bearing LAC No. 178/16 decided on 01.10.2019, which was acquired by the notification of U/s 4 of LA Act, dated 21.03.2003 pertains to the Vilage Karala, thereby fixing the market value of the subject land @ Rs. 19,73,583/- per acre giving an enhancement of Rs. 4,03,583/- per acre alongwith statutory benefits.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF UNION OF INDIA LAC No. 459/2016 Ajit Singh (250506) V. Union of India and Ors.
Page no. 19 of 53
34. Ld. Counsel Sh. Rishabh Sharma appearing on behalf of Union of India/respondent no.1 has vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for Petitioner and has stated that the petitioner is not entitled to any enhancement on compensation being awarded by LAC since at the time of determination of market value on the date of notification i.e. 21.03.2003, the LAC has duly considered all the relevant factors such as location of land, nature of soil and potentiality attached to the land. It has vehemently been argued that besides the aforesaid factors, the LAC has duly considered the indicative price policy of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi as announced on 09.08.2001 which was effective from 01.04.2001. It has been argued that the indicative price for acquisition of agricultural land for public purpose vide the aforesaid notification provides for a fixed price of Rs.15,70,000/- which has to be reviewed only after 3 years. Ld. Counsel for respondent has stretched his arguments by stating that even the petitioner is not entitled to any escalation on the award amount for the period 01.04.2001 to 31.03.2003 since there is no evidence on record to show such escalation in market price. Ld. Counsel has tried to stretch this argument even to the escalation in respect of sale deeds filed on record and relied upon by the petitioners.
35. It is further contended that the compensation awarded by the Reference Court in the other cases are not applicable due to the nature of soil, its potentialities, its distance from the acquired land, proximity of developed area, prevailing market price of land, its fertility, etc. The formula/ ratio laid down in Jai Singh case (supra) is not applicable in the present case since it dealt with the Village Khera Khurd which is 10-11 LAC No. 459/2016 Ajit Singh (250506) V. Union of India and Ors.
Page no. 20 of 53 KM away from village Kirari Suleman Nagar (Patti Nithari) and Village Kirari Suleman Nagar (Patti Nithari) has not been discussed while passing the order by the Hon'ble High Court.
36. Ld. Counsel for the Union of India relied upon the following Judgments, Indicative Price Police, Expert Committee Report, etc:-
1. Lal Chand Vs. UOI, (2009) SCC - 769.
2. State of U. P. Vs. Rajender Singh, AIR - 1996 SC - 1564.
3. K. Vasundara Devi Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, (1995) 5 SCC
- 426.
4. UOI Vs. Dyagala Devamma & Ors. JT 2018 (7) SC-228.
5. Bhim Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ano. JT (2003) 10 SCC -529.
6. Basava Vs. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer (1996) 8 SCC-301.
7. ONGC Vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel (2008) 14 SCC-745.
8. V. G. Kulkarni Vs. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer (1996) 8 SCC-301
9. Jai Prakash Vs. UOI (1997) Delhi Law Times 438 (DB)
10. Raj Devi Vs. UOI, 76 (1998) Delhi Law Times 154 (SC).
11. Kanwar Singh Vs. UOI, 76 (1998), Delhi Law Times 154 (SC).
12. Bhola Nath & Ors. Vs. UOI, 1998 VI AD (Delhi) 159.
37. Ld. Counsel for respondent DDA did not address any separate argument and has adopted the arguments addressed by Ld. Counsel for Union of India.
FINDINGS
38. I have heard Sh. M. C. Verma, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, Sh.
Rishabh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for Union of India and Sh. Karan Kapur, Ld. Counsel for DDA at length and perused the entire record including LAC No. 459/2016 Ajit Singh (250506) V. Union of India and Ors.
Page no. 21 of 53 the pleadings, documents and the oral testimonies. Written submissions have also been filed on behalf of the petitioner as well as UOI. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the same. My issue-wise findings are as under:
ISSUE NO.1
39. The onus of proving the aforesaid issue has not been specifically mentioned at the time of framing of issues. It is settled preposition of law that the onus to prove the market value of the acquired land or inadequacy of compensation awarded by LAC is always upon the petitioner. The aforesaid proposition of law has been authoritatively held by our Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of UP v. Ram Kumari Devi (1996) 8 SCC 577 as well as in State of UP and Anr. Vs. Rajender Singh AIR 1996 SC 1564:
"The onus is on the petitioner to prove that their lands are capable of fetching higher compensation then what has been determined by the LAC and that he is entitled for enhanced compensation".
40. The petitioner has led detailed evidence as discussed above which shall be appreciated in forthcoming paragraphs touching upon various aspects and factors in support of its claim for enhancement of market value for determination of just and fair compensation. Ld. Counsels for the parties have also argued upon the aforesaid aspects in detail.
LEGAL POSITION
41. The statutory provisions regarding determination of compensation for acquisition for land acquired for public purpose is provided U/s 23 of the Act. In addition thereto, Sec 24 of the Act laid down the factors which are not to be considered for the purpose of determining the LAC No. 459/2016 Ajit Singh (250506) V. Union of India and Ors.
Page no. 22 of 53 compensation and the said Sections are reproduced as under : -
Sec-23. Matters to be considered on determining compensation. -
(1) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration first, the market-value of the land at the date of the publication of the [notification under section 4, sub-section (1)];
secondly, the damage sustained by the person interested, by reason of the taking of any standing crops trees which may be on the land at the time of the Collector's taking possession thereof;
thirdly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of serving such land from his other land;
fourthly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, movable or immovable, in any other manner, or his earnings;
fifthly, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Collector, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such change, and sixthly, the damage (if any) bona fide resulting from diminution of the profits of the land between the time of the publication of the declaration under section 6 and the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land.
[(1A) In addition to the market value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per annum on such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section (1), in respect of such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier.
Explanation. - In computing the period referred to in this sub-section, any period or periods during which the proceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction by the order of any Court shall be excluded.] (2) In addition to the market value of the land as above provided, the LAC No. 459/2016 Ajit Singh (250506) V. Union of India and Ors.
Page no. 23 of 53 Court shall in every case award a sum of [thirty per centum] on such market value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition.
Sec-24. Matters to be neglected in determining compensation. - But the Court shall not take into consideration first, the degree of urgency which has led to the acquisition; secondly, any disinclination of the person interested to part with the land acquired;
thirdly, any damage sustained by him which, if caused by a private person, would not render such person liable to a suit;
fourthly, any damage which is likely to be caused to the land acquired, after the date of the publication of the declaration under section 6, by or in consequence of the use to which it will be put;
fifthly, any increase to the value of the land acquired likely to accrue from the use to which it will be put when acquired;
sixthly, any increase to the value of the other land of the person interested likely to accrue from the use to which the land acquired will be put;
seventhly, any outlay or improvements on, or disposal of the land acquired, commenced, made or effected without the sanction of the Collector after the date of the publication of the [notification under section 4, sub-section (1); [or] eighthly, any increase to the value of the land on account of its being put to any use, which is forbidden by law or opposed to public policy.] SALE DEEDS/ EXEMPLARS
42. Counsel for petitioner contended that the best method for calculating the fair market value is consideration of the sale prices of the adjoining areas in the same village or in the absence thereof, nearby village(s). It is further contended that the contention for the said land be fixed as per the sale deeds of land situated in village Mundka and Hiran Kundna and Madanpur Dabas i.e. Ex. PW 3/1 to Ex. PW 3/4 and Ex. PW 4/1 as the land of village Mundka, Hiran Kundna and Madanpur Dabas is LAC No. 459/2016 Ajit Singh (250506) V. Union of India and Ors.
Page no. 24 of 53 situated in the proximity of the village Kirari Suleman Nagar (Patti Nithari). The respondent had only relied upon the sale deed dated 04.12.2002, Ex. R-2, which pertains to 300 sq. yards and sale deed dated 04.12.2002, Ex. R-3, of area measuring 70 sq. yards, sale deed dated 02.04.2002 Ex. R-4, of area measuring 05 Bighas 15 Biswas, all of village Kirari Suleman Nagar (Patti Nithari). These sale deeds pertains to very small pieces of lands and the same was registered on the basis of the circle rates as provided by the government for the purpose of registration, so it cannot be the base for determining the market value of the large scale acquisition of land.
43. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for Union of India contended that the sale deed dated 12.11.1999 of Village Mundka, Ex. PW 3/1 cannot be relied upon to fix the market value as it is of not contemporaneous and was executed 3 years 4 months ago from the date of notification U/s 4 on 21.03.2003. The sale deed dated 05.10.2004 of Village Mundka Ex. PW 3/2 cannot be relied upon because it is post date of notification. He further contended that village Mundka is located at a distance of 3-4 kms from village Kirari Suleman Nagar (Patti Nithari). Village Mundka is having better potentialities as it is well connected with NH-10/ GT Road and having more industrial areas. He contended that sale deed dated 20.09.2000 of village Hiran Kundna as Ex. PW 3/3 cannot be relied upon because the parties entered into agreement to sell on 02.06.1997 which is much prior to the Notification No. 4 in this case. He also contended that the sale deed dated 05.08.2003 of village Hiran Kundna, Ex. PW 3/4 cannot be relied upon because it is post notification date. He further contended that Village Hiran Kundna is located at the distance of 6-7 LAC No. 459/2016 Ajit Singh (250506) V. Union of India and Ors.
Page no. 25 of 53 kms from Village Kirari Suleman Nagar (Patti Nithari) and the sale deeds relied upon by the petitioner did not reflect true and correct value.
44. Ld. Counsel has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme court in (1997) 9 SCC 510 Jai Prakash Vs. Union of India to suggest that the sale deeds of neighboring villages cannot be considered at all and merely because a higher compensation was awarded to the land acquired neighboring villages does not entitle the appellant to get the same compensation ipso facto.
45. He further argued that the UOI tendered in evidence the most relevant agreement to sale which reflects the true and correct market value at the time of notification U/s 4 of LA Act and in fact this is an evidence which substantiate the market value assessed by Collector/ LAC. Union of India relied upon the sale deed dated 04.12.2002 Ex. R- 2, sale deed datd 04.12.2002 Ex. R3 and sale deed dated 02.04.2002 Ex. R-4 of village Kirari Suleman Nagar (Patti Nithari) (i.e. same village of the acquired land in question) and the same can be relied upon because the sale transaction is of proximate period as of date of notification U/s 4 of LA Act i.e. 21.03.2003 and of the same village i.e. Kirari Suleman Nagar (Patti Nithari).
46. It may be relevant to mention here that The Hon'ble Apex Court while enlisting the factors has further relied upon its earlier judgment in Viluben Jhalejar Contractor V. State of Gujarat, (2005) 4 SCC 789 by reproducing the principles laid down for determination of market value of land, which are relevant to note down and reproduced herein below:-
LAC No. 459/2016Ajit Singh (250506) V. Union of India and Ors.
Page no. 26 of 53 "17. Section 23 of the Act specified the matters required to be considered in determining the compensation; the principal among which is the determination of the market value of the land on the date of the publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4.
18. One of the principles for determination of the amount of compensation for acquisition of land would be the willingness of an informed buyer to offer the price therefor. It is beyond any cavil that the price of the land which a willing and informed buyer would offer would be different in the cases where the owner is in possession and enjoyment of the property and in the cases where he is not.
19. Market value is ordinarily the price the property may fetch in the open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the special needs of a particular purchase. Where definite material is not forthcoming either in the shape of sales of similar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the date of notification under Section 4(1) or otherwise, other sale instances as well as other evidence have to be considered.
20. The amount of compensation cannot be ascertained with mathematical accuracy. A comparable instance has to be identified having regard to the proximity from time angle as well as proximity from situation angle. For determining the market value of the land under acquisition, suitable adjustment has to be made having regard to various positive and negative factors vis-a-vis the land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. The positive and negative factors are also enlisted as size of the plot, proximity or distance from a road, frontage or small frontage, nearest or distance from developed area, leveled or unleveled land and even shape of the plot.
47. It may be noted here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court while examining the case law so rendered on each aspect has even laid down that the market value is to be considered having duly regard to all existing conditions including advantages and potentialities attached to the land. It has been further observed that the guiding star for a fair market value would be the conduct of a willing vendor who offered the land and purchaser in normal conduct would be willing to buy as a prudent man in normal market condition, but not an anxious dealing at arms length nor facade of sale nor fictitious sale brought about in a quick LAC No. 459/2016 Ajit Singh (250506) V. Union of India and Ors.
Page no. 27 of 53 succession or otherwise to inflate the determination of market value in prediction of an economic event viz. a price outcome of hypothetical sale expressed in terms of probabilities. In this regard, though not quoted, reliance is placed upon Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1991) 4 SCC 195 and Atma Singh v. State of Haryana (2008) 2 SCC 568.
48. It may be relevant to observe here that the important aspect of consideration of market value on the basis of contemporaneous sale deed of an adjoining land is that the instances of sales are to be taken which are normal sales made by a willing seller to a willing purchaser and it must exclude the disinclination of the vendor to part with the land and the urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy such land. These kinds of sale are often regarded as sales which are fanciful or fancy sales. In Jai Singh (supra), it has been clearly held that fancy sales are to be excluded from the purview of consideration as there may be special circumstances which may need a buyer to pay a higher price much higher to the normal market value if he has a particular need, circumstance or fancy for a particular piece of land. While distinguishing a normal sale worth consideration for determination of market value from a fanciful sale worth exclusion, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has laid down the test:
".... The true test is the price which a well inform willing buyer would pay to an equally well inform seller without being influenced by any special circumstances or the fancy to buy a particular piece of land. An informed buyer would be the one who has studied the market and has apprised himself of all available land in area, has understood the topology of the area and the prevailing price."
49. Taking into consideration the aforesaid discussion, the court now LAC No. 459/2016 Ajit Singh (250506) V. Union of India and Ors.
Page no. 28 of 53 proceeds upon to carefully scrutinize the sale deed produced by the petitioner as well as the respondents to ascertain the proximity between the lands cited in the exemplar sale deeds and the land acquired by the Govt. by notification u/s 4 of the Act. First of all, it would be worthwhile to tabulate the sale deeds relied by the parties and he same is reproduced here as mentioned in the written synopsis filed on behalf of the petitioner :-
S. Exhibit Area of Date Village Value Rates per Acre.
No. Sale Deed
1. Ex. PW 01 Bigha 12.11.1999 Mundka Rs. Rs. 21,31,200/-
3/1 04 Bishwa 4,80,000/-
2. Ex. PW 01 Bigha 05.10.2004 Mundka Rs. Rs. 28,02,162/-
3/2 17 Bishwa 10,80,000/-
3. Ex. PW 04 Bigha 20.09.2000 Hiran Rs. Rs. 53,28,000/-
3/3 16 Bishwa Kundana 48,00,000/-
4. Ex. PW 04 Bigha 05.08.2003 Hiran Rs. Rs. 75,74,280/-
3/4 16 Bishwa Kundana 79,50,000/-
5. Ex. PW 02 Bigha 06.03.2005 Madanpur Rs. Rs.
4/1 Dabas 40,00,000/- 1,03,68,000/-
6. Ex. R-2 300 Sq. 04.12.2002 Kirari Rs. Rs. 27,34,600/-
yards Suleman 1,50,000/-
Nagar
(Patti
Nithari)
7. Ex. R-3 70 Sq. Yard 4.12.2002 -do- Rs. 60,000/- Rs. 41,48,571/-
8. Ex. R-4 5 Bigha 15 02.04.2002 Nithari Rs. Rs. 22,95,031/-
Biswa 18,77,580/-
50. In the case of Lal Chand Vs UOI (supra), it was held that If the acquisition is in regard to a large area of agricultural lands in a village, and the exemplar sale deed is also in respect of an agricultural land in the same village, it may be possible to rely upon the sale deed as prima facie evidence of the prevailing market value, even if such land is at the other end of the village at a distance of one or two kilometres. But the same may not be the position where the acquisition relates to plots in a town or LAC No. 459/2016 Ajit Singh (250506) V. Union of India and Ors.
Page no. 29 of 53 city where every locality or road has a different value. For example in a place like Delhi there are some areas where the plot value is many times more than the value of plots in a neighbouring middle class locality which in turn may be many time more than the value of plot in a neighbouring slum area. Or the price of a property on a main road may be many times more than the price of a property on a parallel smaller road, though the two properties may be situated back to back. It cannot be said that merely because two properties adjoin each other or touch each other the value applicable to the property facing a main road, should be applied to the property to its rear facing a service road. Therefore, while a distance of about a kilometre may not make a difference for purposes of market value in a rural village, even a distance of 50 metre may make a huge difference in market value in urban properties. There would be lesser likelihood of rejection of a sale deed exhibited to prove the market value, if some witness speaks about the property which is the subject matter of the exemplar sale deed and explains its situation, potential, as also about the similarities or dissimilarities with the acquired land. The distance between the two properties, the nature and situation of the property, proximity to the village or a road and several other factors may all be relevant in determining the market value. Mere production of some exemplar deeds without `connecting' the subject matter of the instrument, to the acquired lands will be of little assistance in determining the market value. Section 51A of the LA Act only exempts the production of the original sale deed and examination of the vendor or vendee.
51. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, I will LAC No. 459/2016 Ajit Singh (250506) V. Union of India and Ors.
Page no. 30 of 53 now proceed to analyze the sale deeds produced on behalf of both the parties.
52. The sale deed dated 12.11.1999, Ex. PW-3/1 of village Mundka cannot be considered for assessing the fair market value of the petitioner's land for the following reasons:
a. It is much prior to the date of notification U/s 4 of the Act dated 21.03.2003.
b. The land mentioned in the sale deed is not in proximity of the acquired land as there is distance of 3-4 kms between village Mundka and village Kirari Suleman Nagar (Patti Nithari). The land in Village Mundka is well connected with Rohtak Road/ NH-10. Rohtak Road/ NH-10 passes through the village Mundka.
c. The great chunk of land of village Mundka does not fall within the V-shape area falling between NH-10 and NH-1 as considered by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Jai Singh (supra) and relied upon by the petitioner. There is no evidence on record to show that the sale deed pertains to the land situated on the same side of the NH-10 where the village Kirari Suleman Nagar (Patti Nithari) is located.
53. The sale deed dated 05.10.2004, Ex. PW 3/2 of village Mundka cannot be considered for assessing the fair market value of the petitioner's land for the following reasons:
a. It is post the date of notification U/s 4 of the Act dated 21.03.2003 because after acquisition of land by government, the prices of land suddenly escalates.
b. The land mentioned in the sale deed is not in proximity of the LAC No. 459/2016 Ajit Singh (250506) V. Union of India and Ors.
Page no. 31 of 53 acquired land as there is distance of 3-4 kms between village Mundka and village Kirari Suleman Nagar (Patti Nithari). The land in Village Mundka is well connected with Rohtak Road/ NH-10. Rohtak Road/ NH-10 passes through the village Mundka.
c. The great chunk of land of village Mundka does not fall within the V-shape area falling between NH-10 and NH-1 as considered by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Jai Singh (supra) and relied upon by the petitioner. There is no evidence on record to show that the sale deed pertains to the land situated on the same side of the NH-10 where the village Kirari Suleman Nagar (Patti Nithari) is located.
54. The sale deed dated 20.09.2000, Ex. PW 3/3 of village Hiran Kundana cannot be considered for assessing the fair market value of the petitioner's land for the following reasons:
a. For execution of this sale deed, parties have entered into agreement to sell on 02.06.1997 i.e. much prior to the date of notification U/s 4 of the Act dated 21.03.2003.
b. The land mentioned in the sale deed is not in proximity of the acquired land as there is distance of 6-7 kms between village Hiran Kundana and village Kirari Suleman Nagar (Patti Nithari). c. The land in Village Hiran Kundana does not fall within the V- shape area falling between NH-10 and NH-1 as considered by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Jai Singh (supra) and relied upon by the petitioner. Rather, village Hiran Kundana is situated on the other side of NH-10.
55. The sale deed dated 05.08.2003, Ex. PW 3/4 of village Hiran LAC No. 459/2016 Ajit Singh (250506) V. Union of India and Ors.
Page no. 32 of 53 Kundana cannot be considered for assessing the fair market value of the petitioner's land for the following reasons:
a. It is post the date of notification U/s 4 of the Act dated 21.03.2003 because after acquisition of land by government, the prices suddenly escalates.
b. The land mentioned in the sale deed is not in proximity of the acquired land as there is distance of 6-7 kms between village Hiran Kundana and village Kirari Suleman Nagar (Patti Nithari). c. The land in Village Hiran Kundana does not fall within the V-shape area falling between NH-10 and NH-1 as considered by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Jai Singh (supra) and relied upon by the petitioner. Rather, village Hiran Kundana is situated on the other side of NH-10.
56. The sale deed dated 16.03.2005, Ex. PW 4/1 of village Madanpur Dabas cannot be considered for assessing the fair market value of the petitioner's land for the following reasons:
a. It is post the date of notification U/s 4 of the Act dated 21.03.2003 because after acquisition of land by government, the prices suddenly escalates. There is gap of almost 2 years from the date of this sale deed and the date of notification U/s 4 of the Act.
57. The petitioner has also relied upon the sale deed dated 08.08.2003 Mark O and Sale Deed of 19.03.2004, Mark P in his evidence. But neither the certified copies of these sale deeds has been produced nor any witness has been summoned from the office of Sub-Registrar to produce the original record of these sale deeds. Even in the oral submissions, Ld. LAC No. 459/2016 Ajit Singh (250506) V. Union of India and Ors.
Page no. 33 of 53 Counsel for the petitioner has not relied upon these two sale deeds. Therefore, these two sale deeds Mark O and Mark P are not being considered to ascertain fair market value of the acquired land in this case.
58. Adverting to the sale deed dated 04.12.2002, Ex. R-2 relied upon by respondent no. 1, it cannot be considered for assessing the fair market value of the petitioner's land for the following reasons:
a. It pertains to very small area i.e. 300 sq yards against the total are of 2636 Bigha 18 Biswa acquired vide award no. 25 passed by LAC in this case.
b. This sale deed pertains to a built up land. The sale transaction of commercial/ residential plot cannot be per-se compared with vast tract of agricultural land acquired for public purpose.
59. Adverting to the agreement to sell dated 04.12.2002, Ex. R-3 relied upon by respondent no. 1, it cannot be considered for assessing the fair market value of the petitioner's land for the following reasons:
a. It pertains to very small area i.e. 70 sq yards against the total area of 2636 Bigha 18 Biswa acquired vide award no. 25 passed by LAC in this case.
b. This is not a sale deed but mere agreement to sell. There is no evidence on record whether this agreement to sell had resulted into a sale deed or not.
60. Adverting to the sale deed dated 02.04.2002, Ex. R-4 relied upon by respondent no. 1, it cannot be considered for assessing the fair market LAC No. 459/2016 Ajit Singh (250506) V. Union of India and Ors.
Page no. 34 of 53 value of the petitioner's land because this sale has been executed by taking into consideration, the circle rate as applicable on the date of sale deed. It is settled principle of law that circle rates of the land does not reflect the true market value.
61. Furthermore, this sale transaction is liable to be excluded from the consideration zone of reliable evidence for the purpose of determining fair market value in the teeth of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Chand (supra), wherein, in para No. 76, it has been held as under : -
"76....... when the respondent relied upon certain sale deeds to justify the value determined by Land Acquisition Collector or to show the market value was less than what is claimed by claimants, and if the claimants produce such 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 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." (emphasis supplied)
62. In view of the above discussion, the sale deeds relied upon by the petitioners as well as respondents cannot be considered as sale transactions/ exemplars for the purpose of calculating the fair market value of the acquired land.
PARITY WITH LAND DEVELOPED AND ALLOTTED BY DSIDC/DDA.
63. The ld. counsel for the petitioner contended for determination of the market value of the said land should be assessed on the basis of LAC No. 459/2016 Ajit Singh (250506) V. Union of India and Ors.
Page no. 35 of 53 allotment made by DDA in the adjoining area. The petitioner has also relied upon the allotment letter issued by DDA for allotment of residential plot in the residential area of Rohini in terms of conveyance deed/ the perpetual lease deed Ex. PW 9/1 to Ex. PW 9/4. It is further contended that the above residential areas are developed by government in the adjoining village. The details of market value of above said allotment of residential plot have been mentioned in the perpetual lease deed/ conveyance deed Ex. PW 9/1 to Ex. PW 9/4. The average sale price of all plots is Rs. 1,650/- per square yards (approx). After deduction of development charges of agricultural land at the rate of 50%, The fair price should be fixed.
64. It is further submitted that the land under reference was notified by Section 4 of the Act from boundary to boundary and on the eastern side itself the Rohini Residential Scheme is in existence, therefore, it is apparent that the said land is surrounded with the developed area and the land of the petitioner, which is fit for development, and only the cost of development would be deducted from the said land allotted by the respondent at the time of the notification under Section 4 of the Act.
65. It is further contended that the land of petitioner has great potentiality, as there are so many unauthorized colonies existing upon the agricultural land of the same village, which proves the potentiality of the land in question. The petitioner relies upon the provisional certificates issued to these colonies namely Baljeet Vihar, Nithari Extension, Agar Nagar, Prem Nagar-III, Kirari, etc which have been proved by PW-7.
66. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for Union of India argued that the LAC No. 459/2016 Ajit Singh (250506) V. Union of India and Ors.
Page no. 36 of 53 petitioner misplaced the reliance on provisional certificate Ex. PW 7/1 to Ex. PW 7/3, perpetual lease deed Ex. PW 9/1 to Ex. PW 9/4 because the perpetual lease deed and allotment are either instances of allotment or creation of a perpetual lease, by the Govt. for specific purpose and hence cannot be compared with the instances of sale of an undervalued agricultural land acquired for public purpose which requires lot of development and incurring of very high development charges. Secondly, these allotments are pertaining to year 1993, 1996 and 1999 are not contemporaneous to date of notification which is 21.03.2003 and hence cannot be relied upon to determine the market value of acquired land of LA Act.
67. Ld. Counsel for UOI further argued that in the case of Lal Chand Vs. Union of India (2009) 15 SCC 769, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India discarded the DDA Rate, DDA Brochure, Circle Rates, Govt. to Govt. transfer i.e. transfer from DDA to DSIDC, MCD, Civil Aviation, etc.
68. The documents relied upon by the petitioner are carefully perused, they are either instances of allotment or creation of a perpetual lease deed, that too by the Government for specific purpose. These cannot be compared with the instances of sale of an under developed agricultural land acquired for public purpose which requires lot of development and incurring of very high development charges. Secondly, these allotments are pertaining to year 1993 and 1999 which are not contemporaneous to the year of land acquisition which is 2003. Further, allotment or creation of a lease hold right by the Government or any Industrial Agency is for LAC No. 459/2016 Ajit Singh (250506) V. Union of India and Ors.
Page no. 37 of 53 specific purpose of creating either an industrial hub or creating a residential area which requires lot of planning and developmental activities by the Government involving huge amount of fund.
69. In the case of Pratap Singh (Dead) through LRs Vs. Union of India, LA Appeal No. 193 of 2006 decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 19.12.2008, it was held that when the land in question was used for agricultural purpose, mainly because it is likely to be used for commercial purpose, would not be relevant consideration in fixing the market value. Section 24 of the Act specifically puts embargo on the Court not to take into consideration the factors which are to be included in determining the compensation. Clause 5 th thereof would be relevant in this context, which is as under; "fifthly, any increase to the value of the land acquired likely to accrue from the use to which it will be put when acquired."
70. Finally, the allotment for creation of freehold right cannot be treated as an instance of absolute sale and as such, cannot be compared to market value of the land in case of agricultural land acquisition by the Government. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while examining the entire gamut of law including the development cost has rejected the allotment rates/auction rates in regard to plots allotted by industrial authority or lease hold allotment made by developmental agency like DDA in developed layout for determination of adjoining under-developed land. It would be therefore, relevant to refer to the observations made in Lal Chand (supra), which are as under: -
"7. On careful consideration, we are of the view that such LAC No. 459/2016 Ajit Singh (250506) V. Union of India and Ors.
Page no. 38 of 53 allotment rates of plots adopted by Development Authorities like DDA cannot form the basis for award of compensation for acquisition of undeveloped lands for several reasons. Firstly market value has to be determined with reference to large tracts of undeveloped agricultural lands in a rural area, whereas the allotment rates of development authorities are with reference to small plots in a developed lay out falling within Urbana. Secondly DDA and other statutory authorities adopt different rates for plots in the same area with reference to the economic capacity of the buyer, making it difficult to ascertain the real market value, whereas market value determination for acquisitions is uniform and does not depend upon the economic status of the land loser. Thirdly we are concerned with market value of freehold land, whereas the allotment "rates" in the DDA Brochure refer to the initial premium payable on allotment of plots on leasehold basis. We may elaborate on these three factors.
8. First factor: The percentage of 'deduction for development' to be made to arrive at the market value of large tracts of undeveloped agricultural land (with potential for development), with reference to the sale price of small developed plots, varies between 20% to 75% of the price of such developed plots, the percentage depending upon the nature of development of the lay out in which the exemplar plots are situated. The 'deduction for development' consists of two components. The first is with reference to the area required to be utilised for developmental works and the second is the cost of the development works. For example if a residential layout is formed by DDA or similar statutory authority, it may utilise around 40% of the land area in the layout, for roads, drains, parks, play grounds and civic amenities (community facilities) etc. The Development Authority will also incur considerable expenditure for development of undeveloped land into a developed layout, which includes the cost of levelling the land, cost of providing roads, underground drainage and sewage facilities, laying waterlines, electricity lines and developing parks and civil amenities, which would be about 35% of the value of the developed plot. The two factors taken together would be the deduction for development' and can account for as much as 75% of the cost of the developed plot. On the other hand, if the residential plot is in an unauthorised private residential layout, the percentage of deduction for development' may be far less. This is because in an un- authorized lay outs, usually no land will be set apart for parks, play grounds and community facilities. Even if any land is set apart, it is likely to be minimal. The roads and drains will also be narrower, just adequate for movement of vehicles. The amount spent on development work would also be comparatively LAC No. 459/2016 Ajit Singh (250506) V. Union of India and Ors.
Page no. 39 of 53 less and minimal. Thus the deduction on account of the two factors in respect of plots in unauthorised layouts, would be only about 20% plus 20% in all 40% as against 75% in regard to DDA plots. The deduction for development' with references to prices of plots in authorised private residential layouts may range between 50% to 65% depending upon the standards and quality of the layout. The position with reference to industrial layouts will be different. As the industrial plots will be large (say of the size of one or two acres or more as contrasted with the size of residential plots measuring 100 sq.m. to 200 sq.m.), and as there will be very limited civic amenities and no playgrounds, the area to be set apart for development (for roads, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities) will be far less; and the cost to be incurred for development will also be marginally less, with the result the deduction to be made from the cost of a industrial plot may range only between 45% to 55% as contrasted from 65 to 75% for residential plots. If the acquired land is in a semi- developed urban area, and not an undeveloped rural area, then the deduction for development may be as much less, that is, as little as 25% to 40%, as some basic infrastructure will already be available. (Note: The percentages mentioned above are tentative standards and subject to proof to the contrary).
9. Therefore the deduction for the 'development factor' to be made with reference to the price of a small plot in a developed lay out, to arrive at the cost of undeveloped land, will be for more than the deduction with reference to the price of a small plot in an unauthorized private lay out or an industrial layout. It is also well known that the development cost incurred by statutory agencies is much higher than the cost incurred by private developers, having regard to higher overheads and expenditure. Even among the layouts formed by DDA, the percentage of land utilized for roads, civic amenities, parks and play grounds may vary with reference to the nature of layout - whether it is residential, residential- cum-commercial or industrial; and even among residential layouts, the percentage will differ having regard to the size of the plots, width of the roads, extent of community facilities, parks and play grounds provided. Some of the layouts formed by statutory Development Authorities may have large areas earmarked for water/sewage treatment plants, water tanks, electrical sub-stations etc. in addition to the usual areas earmarked for roads, drains, parks, playgrounds and community/civic amenities. The purpose of the aforesaid examples is only to show that the deduction for development' factor is a variable percentage and the range of percentage itself being very wide from 20% to 75%.
10. Second factor: DDA and other statutory development authorities adopt different rates for allotment, plots in the same LAC No. 459/2016 Ajit Singh (250506) V. Union of India and Ors.
Page no. 40 of 53 layout, depending upon the economic status of the allottees, classifying them as high income group, middle income group, low income group, and economically weaker sections. As a consequence, in the same layout, plots may be earmarked for persons belonging to economically weaker section at a price/premium of Rs. 100/- sq.m, whereas the price/premium charged may be Rs.150/- per sq.m for members of low income group, Rs.200/- per sq.m for persons belonging to middle income group and Rs. 250/- per sq. m. for persons belonging to High income groups. The ratio of sites in a layout reserved for HIG, MIG, LIG and EWS may also vary. All these varying factors reflect in the rates for allotment. It will be illogical to take the average of the allotment rates, as the 'market value' of those plots, does not depend upon the cost incurred by DDA statutory authority, but upon the paying capacity of the applicants for allotment.
11. Third factor: Some development authorities allot plots on freehold basis, that is by way of absolute sale. Some development authorities like DDA allot plots on leasehold basis. Some have premium which is almost equal to sale price, with a nominal annual rent, whereas others have lesser premium, and more substantial annual rent. There are standard methods for determining the annual rental value with reference to the value of a freehold property. There are also standard methods for determining the value of freehold (ownership) rights with reference to the annual rental income in regular leases. But it is very difficult to arrive at the market value of a freehold property with reference to the premium for a leasehold plot allotted by DDA. As the period of lease is long, the rent is very nominal, some times there is a tendency among public to equate the lease premium rate (allotment price) charged by DDA, as being equal to the market value of the property. However, in view of the difficulties referred to above, it is not safe or advisable to rely upon the allotment rates/auction rates in regard to the plots formed by DDA in a developed layout, in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. The DDA brochure price has therefore to be excluded as being not relevant".
71. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court is clear and categoric whereby it rejected the rates fixed by DDA. It is not safe to rely upon these rates for determination of market value of subject agricultural land acquired vide notification dated 21.03.2003. The contentions raised by petitioner's counsel are thus, liable to be rejected.
LAC No. 459/2016Ajit Singh (250506) V. Union of India and Ors.
Page no. 41 of 53 YIELD BASE ASSESSMENT
72. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further contended that even otherwise the market value can be determined on the basis of annual yield method or capitalisation of rent in as much as petitioner claims to earn a sum of Rs. 1 lakh to 1.25 lakhs per Bigha from his agricultural land after deduction of the expenses for cultivation. However, the petitioner do not have any record/bills for the same as they have not preserved the bills of their agricultural produce/sales.
73. Ld. Counsel for respondent no.1 on the other hand has countered the aforesaid arguments by contending that the award amount granted by the LAC also inheres the agricultural produce expected from the land. It has been contended that even otherwise, at the time of determination of indicative price by the Government, the aforesaid factor was taken into consideration by the expert committee.
74. It may be seen that the petitioner apart from claiming the earnings from the acquired land has failed to bring on record any documentary to corroborate the same. The petitioner has neither placed any document showing the sale of agriculture produce. The petitioner has neither filed any electricity or irrigation bill nor any bill showing the purchase of tractor or even diesel being used. No proof of number of workers employed or their wages given, has been shown on record. Besides there is no proof of such high volume of sales being effected in a local mandi or otherwise. The petitioner has failed to examine even a single trader to whom the alleged produce was sold for all these number of years. The LAC No. 459/2016 Ajit Singh (250506) V. Union of India and Ors.
Page no. 42 of 53 petitioner has even failed to bring before the court any witnesses from any department to show the agricultural produce of village Kirari Suleman Nagar (Patti Nithari) or any nearby block. No proof of payment made to irrigation department or any other department has been furnished. Thus, on the basis of aforesaid, the claim raised by the petitioner for grant of compensation on the basis of Yield or Capitalization of rent, remains uncorroborated and unsubstantiated and as such, the market value cannot be determined on the aforesaid method accordingly. The claim on this count is also liable to be rejected accordingly.
INDICATIVE PRICE POLICY ANNOUNCED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
75. One of the contention in this petition is assessing the compensation on the basis of Indicative Price policy announced by Govt. of NCT of Delhi which Ld. Counsel for petitioner as well as respondents have equally relied upon, though in diametrically opposite directions.
76. Ld. Counsel for petitioner contended that the LAC had not given an increase in the market value from 01.04.2001 to 21.03.2003 and had fixed the market value on the basis of indicating price policy fixed by the government from time to time. T he LAC has fixed with the market value on the basis of the indicative price announced by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi applicable from 01.04.2001 at the rate of 15,70,000/- per acre. The petitioner also relied upon the indicative price policy Ex. PW 2/5 and Ex. PW 2/6 for the year 2008 whereby, the government fixed the market LAC No. 459/2016 Ajit Singh (250506) V. Union of India and Ors.
Page no. 43 of 53 value of the agricultural land.
77. It may be relevant to note here that the respondent no.1/UOI has also vehemently relied upon the aforesaid indicative price policy. The contention raised by the respondent no.1 is that indicative prices for the acquired agricultural land has been fixed by the Govt. and revised from time to time after consideration of all the factors by an Expert Committee which was constituted under the chairmanship of the then Finance Minister, Govt. of NCT of Delhi thereby giving a realistic and well examined amount of Rs.15,70,000/- per acre for the acquired agricultural land within the National Capital Territory of Delhi.
78. It is further the contention of the respondent no.1 that the report itself suggests that such revision in prices should be periodic and the same can only be done in an interval of 3 years. It is the contention raised that having announced the minimum indicative prices on 09.08.2001 (effective from 01.04.2001), the next revision shall take place only in the year 2004 and that to be effective from 01.04.2004 and therefore, the notification of the Govt. acquiring agricultural land between the period should be covered by the indicative prices fixed by the Govt. in 2001 only and no such enhancement even by percentage annual increase can be accorded to the land owners including the petitioner herein. The respondent no.1 has sought support from Lal Chand (supra).
79. It may be noted that both the contentions, based upon the same Indicative Price policy of the Govt. requires a little analysis. First of all, LAC No. 459/2016 Ajit Singh (250506) V. Union of India and Ors.
Page no. 44 of 53 the indicative prices or to be precise, the minimum indicative price announced by the Land & Building Department of Delhi Administration (later by Govt. of NCT of Delhi) are in the form of letters issued by the Department thereby fixing the minimum price/rates of agricultural land for acquisition of land acquired for public purpose under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 within the Union Territory (later National Capital Territory) of Delhi with the objective of countering the variable prices of acquired land announced by LAC mainly on the basis of exemplar sale deeds and sometime under valuation of the land for the purpose of registration of Sale Deed which leads to insufficient compensation much below the market price leading to resistance of acquisition resulting into non-availability of land available through regular channel. In a way, the minimum Indicative Prices were fixed by the Government to actually give a relief to the land owners by countering the menace of under valuation of sale deeds.
80. It may be noted here that it has categorized the land in two categories, one land situated in river bed between the forward bunds and second, all other agricultural lands. The indicative prices were announced for first time on 03.05.1990 (w.e.f. 27.04.1990) thereby fixing the price as Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.4,65,000/- per acre respectively. The same was lastly announced on 24.01.2008 (effective from 18.12.2007) fixing the same to be Rs.17,60,000/- and Rs.53,00,000/- respectively. For the purpose of the present case, the effective date of such announcement is 09.08.2001 (effective from 01.04.2001) thereby fixing the price to be Rs.11,50,000/- and Rs.15,70,000/- per acre respectively. It is this value of Rs.15,70,000/- per acre which is fixed by LAC No. 459/2016 Ajit Singh (250506) V. Union of India and Ors.
Page no. 45 of 53 the LAC in the instant case and is under dispute. The summation of these indicative prices has been referred to in a tabulated form in Jai Singh (supra) as under:-
Sl. Date of Effective Date of the Price (in % Increase per No. Notification Price lakhs/acre) annum
1. 03.05.1990 27.04.1990 4.65
2. 25.07.1997 01.04.1997 10.0 11.5
3. 24.09.1998 01.04.1998 11.2 11.2
4. 21.11.2000 - 12.32 5. 09.08.2001 01.04.1999 12.16 11 01.04.2000 13.82 11
6. 09.08.2001 01.04.2001 15.7 11.5
7. 30.08.2005 30.08.2005 17.584 2.98
8. 24.01.2008 18.12.2007 53 89.51
81. Ld. LAC has not considered the annual escalation factor for the period between the indicative price policy (01.04.2001) and the date of notification u/s 4 (21.03.2003).
82. It may be noted that, though it is true that the Govt. is well within its powers to review the minimum prices after every 3 years or even prior to that but it will not automatically imply that the land prices have to be made or shall remain static during such intervals. Even the Govt. while announcing the indicative prices vide its letter dated 09.08.2001 have specifically mentioned in the announcement itself, that these indicative prices are minimum rates for compensation and the actual rate for compensation would be determined by Land Acquisition Authority in accordance with the provision of Land Acquisition Act and the prevalent case law. In other words, the indicative prices are reference prices for the acquired lands and other factors including the escalation are required to be considered by the LAC. This escalation of price has very well been recognised by our own Hon'ble High Court in Jai Singh (supra).LAC No. 459/2016
Ajit Singh (250506) V. Union of India and Ors.
Page no. 46 of 53
83. It may be noted that reliance has been placed upon Mahender Singh (supra) wherein it has been observed that :
"This also had the approval of the reference court. The apparent defect in the award is that while giving benefit by adding the value of the land @ 11.5% per annum, no benefit has been given to the claimants for the period from 01.04.96 to 15.11.96, the date of acquisition of their land. Seven to Eight months is a material period for considering the benefit to be given on an immovable property in the case of compulsive acquisition"
84. It may be noted that in para No.7 and 8 of Jai Singh (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has not only noted but also has considered the annual increase on percentage basis in the land prices in respect of the indicative prices fixed by the Govt. from time to time. Accordingly, not considering the escalation for the period 01.04.2001 to 31.03.2003, the market value assessed by the LAC cannot be considered appropriate and the market value so announced in the award dated 12.07.2005 cannot be called a fair market value.
85. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Jai Singh (supra), (which has later been affirmed by a full bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 675 of 2012 titled Union of India v. Jai Singh) has decided the market value of 10 villages situated in the then North-West Revenue District of Delhi involving 8 notifications right from 07.08.2000 uptil 27.01.2003. The Hon'ble High Court, while disposing of above Land Acquisition appeals, has virtually considered all the arguments referred to above and critically discussed the judgments referred to by Ld. Counsel for parties including the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Chand (supra). The Hon'ble Court while rejecting the approach of the LAC in determining the market value while awarding LAC No. 459/2016 Ajit Singh (250506) V. Union of India and Ors.
Page no. 47 of 53 compensation in respect of the acquired land merely on the basis of the minimum indicative price notified by the Government closest in point of time to the date of notification without appreciating the escalation in land price for the intervening period has held that the annual progressive increase from the date of policy till the date of notification needs to be considered while taking into account the other relevant factors.
86. It may be noted that the Hon'ble Court in para 19 of Jai Singh (supra) while analysing the compensation awarded by the LAC and subsequently by the reference courts has mentioned that most of the reference courts have awarded compensation by giving an annual progressive increase of 11% to 12% relying upon the judgment Gajraj Singh Vs. Union of India 2006 (VI) AD Delhi 13. Hon'ble Court has even discussed Lal Chand (supra) in reference to the escalation being given, by reiterating that normally about 12% Annual Escalation Method over the proved market value is reasonably safe unless adverse circumstances for denying the same are brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Court.
87. It may be noted that while summarizing the entire discussion the Hon'ble Court in para No.59 of Jai Singh (supra) held that the best available basis for assessment of market value of village situated within the "V" (formed by NH1 and NH10) may be indicative prices announced by the Government nearest to the date of notification and/or market value of adjoining land or a combination of two. The relevant extract is produced as under:
"59. Taking the logical reasoning a little further it assumed importance that as per the minimum price notified by the Government as of 01.04.2000 LAC No. 459/2016 Ajit Singh (250506) V. Union of India and Ors.
Page no. 48 of 53 the per acre price was Rs.13.82 lakhs and as of 1.4.2001 the same was Rs.15.7 lakhs per acre i.e. the percentage increase between the year was 11.5% per annum. if I treat Category 'A' land price at Rs.18.655 lakhs as of 20.5.2002 based on the sale deed Ex.R-2 deducting the price by 11% per annum, the price as of 1.4.2001 would come to approximately Rs.16.40 lakhs per acre and this would highlight that when contrasted with the minimum price notified by the Government at Rs.15.7 lakhs per acre as of 1.4.2001, the price differential is Rs.70,000/- per acre i.e. 4.46%. Since exactness can never be achieved while determining fair market value of a large chunk of land with reference to a few sale deeds where small parcels of land are sold for the reason even within a colony, the size, the location, the frontage etc. of a piece of land would very the price by plus or minus 5%. What I wish to highlight is that even the sale deed in question yields to us a fair index as per which the minimum price notified by the Government has an element of rationality and acceptability......".
88. As per the ratio of Jai Singh (supra), the Hon'ble High Court while considering about 400 appeals and covering 8 notifications of 10 villages has in fact laid down a formula for determination of fair market value while considering the indicative price policy of the government nearest to the date of notification and the sale deed dated 20.05.2002 of village Rajapur Kalan whereunder agricultural land measuring 1 bigha and 13 biswas situated in Khasra No.200 was sold for a consideration price of Rs.5,39,690/-. The Hon'ble Court has then updated the two values by adding or deducting so as to bring them to the date of notification and then finally taken a mean value of the two values for determination of the fair market value. The guiding formula evolved can be simply summarized as:-
(1) The sale deed dated 20.05.2002 of village Rajapur Kalan@ Rs.17,74,109 ("C" category) was considered and taken to B or A category land (as the case may be) by adding 2.5% increase from category "C" to category "B" and a further 2.5% increase from category "B" to category "A".
Accordingly, for category "A" Land price comes to be Rs.18,65,500/- (Rs. 17,74,109/- + 2.5% = 18,18,462/- + 2.5% = Rs. 18,65,500/-).
This value was then stretched suitably to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, by adding/deducting. (Para No.59 of Judgment) (2) Indicative Price of Rs.13,82,000/- (as on 1.04.2000) and Rs.15,70,000/-
LAC No. 459/2016Ajit Singh (250506) V. Union of India and Ors.
Page no. 49 of 53 (as on 01.04.2001) were considered as nearest to the date of notification. This value was also then stretched suitably to the date of notification under section 4 of the Act, by adding/deducting.
(3) Both (1) and (2) were calculated and a mean is drawn.
89. The aforesaid formula was almost uniformally applied in the judgment in respect of all the lands except where the same could not have been suitably applied in view of circumstances of each appeal.
90. As already discussed in the foregoing paras that the land of village Kirari Suleman Nagar (Patti Nithari) do not suffer from any inherent disadvantage in terms of its location or potentialities and is very well covered with the circumstances discussed herein above. No special circumstances have been cogently evidenced by either of the petitioner or the respondents, the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble High Court which has even been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India provides a good guide for determination of fair market value of the said land acquired by the notification dated 21.03.2003.
91. As discussed above, sale exemplars produced by either of the parties can not be considered for calculating the fair market value on the date of notification u/s 4 of the Act. Therefore, the formula envisaged by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Jai Singh's case for calculating market price on the basis of mean value of sale exemplars and enhanced indicative price, cannot be applied in this case in absence of any sale exemplar. In absence of any other evidence with regard to calculating Fair market value of the land, this court is of considered opinion that Indicative Price Policy is the best evidence available on the record to calculate fair market value of the land which had also been considered LAC No. 459/2016 Ajit Singh (250506) V. Union of India and Ors.
Page no. 50 of 53 by the Hon'ble High court of Delhi in Jai Singh's case.
92. In the case of General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited Vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Anr. (2014), SCC 745, The Hon'ble Apex Court of India has held that it is appropriate to apply increase in prices cumulatively, "18. 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 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 square metre):
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
19. we may also point out that application of flat rate will lead to anomalous results. This may be demonstrated with further reference to the above illustrations. In regard to the sale transaction in 1987, where the price was Rs. 10 per square metre, 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 1990 when the price was Rs. 13 per square metre, 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 flat rate."
93. Accordingly, by applying the increase in price at the rate of 11.5 % per annum (cumulatively) on minimum indicative price of Rs LAC No. 459/2016 Ajit Singh (250506) V. Union of India and Ors.
Page no. 51 of 53 15,70,000 per acre, the fair market value would be :
94. The minimum Indicative Price of Rs.15,70,000/- as on 01.04.2001 is suitably modified to 21.03.2003 i.e. the date of notification u/s 4 thereby giving an annual cumulative increase of 11.5 % for one year and 354 days, is Rs.19,45,796/- (round of to Rs. 19,45,800).
95. The Court accordingly adjudicates and determines the market value of land of petitioner @ Rs.19,45,800/- per acre. An enhancement of Rs.3,75,800/- per acre is accordingly accorded.
96. Besides aforesaid, the statutory benefit as per the Land Acquisition Act 1984 as per Sunder v. Union of India, 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be paid viz.
(a) 12% additional amount ( in terms of Section 23 (1A) of the Act).
(b) Solatium @ 30% on the enhanced compensation (in terms of S.23 (2) of the Act).
(c) The petitioner shall also entitle to interest @ 9% per annum for the first year and 15% per annum for the subsequent year till the payment of enhanced compensation by LAC is made (in terms of Section 28 of the Act).
Issue no.1 is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO.2 : RELIEF.
97. In view of the findings on Issue no.1, the petitioner is granted the following reliefs:-
(1) Fair Market value of land of petitioner @ Rs.19,45,800/- per acre.
An enhancement of Rs.3,75,800/- per acre is accordingly accorded. (2) Additional amount @ 12% ( in terms of Section 23 (1A) of the Act).LAC No. 459/2016
Ajit Singh (250506) V. Union of India and Ors.
Page no. 52 of 53 (3) Solatium @ 30% on the enhanced compensation (in terms of S.23 (2) of the Act).
(4) Interest @ 9% per annum for the first year and 15% per annum for the subsequent year till the payment of enhanced compensation by LAC is made (in terms of Section 28 of the Act).
98. Reference petition is accordingly, answered with parties to bear their own respective costs.
File be consigned to Record Room after due completion.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023 Digitally signed by GAGANDEEP GAGANDEEP JINDAL JINDAL Date: 2023.10.18 15:24:53 +0530 (GAGANDEEP JINDAL) ADJ-1+MACT, NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI LAC No. 459/2016 Ajit Singh (250506) V. Union of India and Ors. Page no. 53 of 53