Delhi High Court
Shri Harprat And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 12 July, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(64)DRJ460
JUDGMENT Devinder Gupta, J.
1. These nine appeals are being decided by a common judgment since the land situate within the same revenue estate was acquired for the same public purpose and is covered by the same award of the Collector Land Acquisition and the claim is for enhancement in the amount of compensation. RFA No. 84 of 1999 is being taken as the lead case in which comprehensive evidence has been led.
2. Subject matter of these appeals is the determination of the amount of compensation payable to the appellants for their lands situate within the revenue estate of Chilla Saroda Bangar, Delhi acquired for Planned Development of Delhi through notification issues under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on 17.11.1980. It was followed by declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 29.9.1981. Collector Land Acquisition made his award No. 39/82-83 on 30.9.1982 offering compensation at the rate of Rs. 8,000/- per bigha. References were sought. The Reference Court by the impugned award declined to enhance the amount of compensation. Claimants filed these appeals under Section 54 of the Act for enhancement at the rate of Rs. 400/- per sq. yard.
3. Before we proceed further, it will be but appropriate to take into consideration the location of the revenue estate Chilla-Saroda-Bangar, Delhi, which is subject matter of these appeals. Revenue estate of village Chilla-Saroda-Bangar is surrounded by the lands of villages Dallupura, Kondli and Ghaurali towards North East; Sector 14, 14A, 16A and 17 NOIDA are immediately towards South East. D.D.A. Colony of Mayur Vihar Phase I and II and Patpar Ganj, Jhilmil Tahirpur are towards North West. Out of the three revenue estates of Dallupura, Kondli and Gharauli lying towards the NorthEast Dallupura being the nearest followed by Kondli and Gharauli whereas Mayur Vihar Phase I is immediately towards North and Sector 14 and 14A are just touching on the South Eastern side.
4. For Planned Development of Delhi by virtue of a common notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 17.10.1980, which was followed by declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 29.9.1981 considerable lands situate in villages Chilla-Saroda-Bangar, Dallupura and Kondli were acquired. As per the evidence on record, village Chilla-Saroda-Bangar, as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act was contiguous to the revenue estate of village Nayabans, which is in NOIDA and now comprises of Sector Nos. 14, 15 and 15A on one side and Mayur Vihar Samachar Apartments, Galaxo Apartments, Parvana Apartments, Indian Institute of Medical Sciences Apartments towards Northern side. These colonies had already come into existence prior to 1980. All development work had been completed including laying of the roads. Village Dallupura was adjoining the revenue estate of Chilla Saroda Bangar towards North East. Revenue estate of Jhilmil Tahirpur wherein were located industrial and residential areas was in close proximity towards North Western side with all civic amenities like electricity, road, transport, sewage, telephone and school available within revenue estate of Chilla Saroda Bangar as on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. This topography of village Chilla Saroda Bangar as is available on the file can also be co-related with the Eicher map wherein revenue estate of Chilla Saroda Bangar is shown located just touching Yamuna Marginal Band Road, namely, Najafgarh Road.
5. Claim for enhancement in the amount of compensation has already been determined by this Court with respect to similar lands situate in village Dallupura and in village Kondli. Therefore, in order to maintain parity and avoid any discrimination, the claimants have prayed that they also deserve to be treated equally by making similar determination. It was pointed out that in LAC No. 142/90 ( Bali Ram Sharma and Ors. v. Union of India , ) (copy of Ex.A.6) Reference Court in its award dated 20.8.1992 and assessed fair market value of land situate in village Kondli at Rs. 76.50 per sq. yard. Appeal against this award was preferred and Division Bench of this Court in RFA No. 601/92 ( Anil Kumar v. Union of India , ) decided on 21.7.2000 assessed fair market value at Rs. 345/- per sq. yard. Subject matter of acquisition was land situate in village Kondli acquired for the same public purpose through the same notification dated 17.10.1980.
6. For similar land situate in village Dallupura acquired through notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 17.11.1980 for same public purpose, the Reference Court in LAC No. 511/93 ( Rattan Lal v. Union of India , ) had assessed fair market value at Rs. 76.55 per sq yard. Copy of the award is proved on record as Ex.A.10. In appeal against the said award, this Court in RFA No. 338/94 ( Rattan Lal and Ors. v. Union of India , ) decided on 24.8.2001 has assessed the fair market value at Rs. 345/- per sq. yard.
7. In addition to placing reliance upon the aforementioned two decisions of this Court wherein fair market value of similar lands situate in village Kondli and Dallupura has been assessed at Rs. 345/- per sq. yard, reliance is also placed upon copies of various lease deeds Ex.A.11, Ex.A.12 and Ex.A.13 of plots of land located in Noida; lease deed Ex.A.17 dated 12.5.1976 of village Kondli; letter No. Ex.A.20 showing average auction rates in respect of residential plots in Jhilmil Phase I and II of D.D.A. from the year 1980; award of Reference Court in LAC No. 96/85 ( Avtar Singh v. Union of India , ) decided on 15.10.1987 assessing market value at Rs. 625/- per sq. yard for land acquired through notification dated 17.7.1981 and schedule of rates issued by Government of India. It was urged that similar set of evidence had been led in the cases decided by this Court of village Kondli and Dallupura. Similar set of evidence was led by the claimants for assessment of compensation of their lands situate in Chilla-Saroda-Bangar also. This Court for similar land had assessed the market value at Rs. 76.55 per sq. yard. for land of villages Kondli and Dallupura but the Reference Court despite that set of evidence failed to make similar determination in the case of the appellants. The Reference Court in awards Ex.A.6 and Ex.A.10 assessed the market value of lands situate within the revenue estates of village Kondli and Dallupura respectively, which was subject matter of award No. 80/82-83 of village Kondli and award No. 79/82-83 of village Dallupura. On reference being to these awards, it is an admitted position that the revenue estate of villages Chilla-Saroda-Bangar, Kondli and Dallupura were contiguous to each other. Collector in his award No. 80/82-83 of village Kondli had observed that the land of village Dallupura had gained importance due to coming up of Noida Complex in U.P. and because of tremendous construction activities going on by D.D.A. in village Chilla Saroda Bangar. In Ex.A.4, which is the award of the Collector with respect to village Kondli, it was observed:-
"In order to arrive at the fair and reasonable market value of the land under acquisition prevailing at the time of notification under Section 4 i.e. 17.11.80, we can take help of sale transaction dated 14.2.74 involving the land bearing Khasra Nos. 221 and 22228 total measuring 5 bighas for Rs. 30,000/- and average of which comes to Rs. 6000/- per bigha. The area of above transaction is located towards the North of village abadi of Kondli and is the part of the present scheme of acquisition. Since then this area has gained great importance by coming up of NOIDA Industrial and residential complex of U.P. which is quite adjacent to the land under acquisition. Now this land has special adoptability for housing or factory purposes so it could also not be a safe based to arrive at correct and fair market value of the land under acquisition. Some interested persons also filed a sale transaction pertaining to Khasra No. 294/1 measuring 2 bighas 14 biswas for Rs. 35,000/- on 18.7.1980 in the adjacent village Dallupura. The average sale per bigha comes to Rs. 12,962.96 though the involved in the sale transaction is situated one K.M. far from the land under acquisition, yet both the land has similarity in fertilizers and nature only slight difference is of potentiality of building purpose. the land of village Dallupura has gained good importance of coming up NOIDA complex in U.P. and building activities of D.D.A. in village Chilla Saroda Bangar."
8. The aforementioned observation of the Collector itself would suggest that as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act the acquired area had already gained much importance and had tremendous potentiality for being used for residential as well as for commercial and industrial purposes.
9. Evidence, as noticed above, do reflect of the availability of all civic amenities like electricity, road, transport, sewage, telephone, schools etc. in village Chilla-Saroda-Bangar as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Land situate in village Dallupura was shown to be better located than village Kondli. At this stage, it will be useful to refer to the objection raised on behalf of the respondents as regards placing of reliance on the determination of the amount of compensation determined for village Kondli and Dallupura being irrelevant since it was urged that determination of the amount of compensation payable for similar land situate in village Gharauli cannot altogether be ignored. It was urged that the land situate in village Gharauli was also acquired under the same notification. Division Bench of this Court in Karan Singh and Ors. v. Union of India , 55(1994) D.L.T. 511 (DB) had already made determination of the amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 76,550/- per bigha. Copy of judgment was also a piece of evidence relied upon by the claimants as Ex.A.7. Determination of the amount of compensation of village Gharauli at Rs. 76,550/- per bigha had already been affirmed by this Court in Karan Singh's case (supra) as was made by the Reference Court in LAC No. 144/90 (Ex.A.7) and this determination of the amount of compensation had been also affirmed by Supreme Court in Karan Singh v. Union of India , (1996) 11 S.C.N. 170.
10. It was further urged that with respect to determination of compensation by this Court of villages Kondli. S.L.Ps. had already been preferred and in case of village Dallupura, Union of India was contemplating to file appeals. As such the determination of compensation of village Kondli and Dallupura, there has been no final adjudication, therefore, reliance either has to be placed with respect to determination of compensation of village Gharauli or in any case by relying upon the documents produced by the respondents being copies of sale deeds Ex.R1 to R.5.
11. In so far as village Gharauli is concerned, as per the evidence on record and as per the typography and location vis-a-vis the revenue estate of Chilla-Saroda-Bangar, it is the last village on North Eastern side. In between Gharauli and Chilla-Saroda-Bangar are located Dallupura and Kondli. Therefore, even from distance it is the farthest and in the absence of any material on record about its comparison to the land of village Chilla Saroda Banger, it may not be appropriate for us to place reliance upon the decision in Karan Singh's case , (supra).
12. In the matter of determination of the amount of compensation, when land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he in law is entitled to say that he should be paid highest rate with respect to which similar lands in the locality are shown to have fetched in bonafide transactions entered into between the willing purchaser and the willing seller near about the time of acquisition., as laid down by Supreme Court in Sri Rani M. Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur v. The Collector of Madras , 1969 M.L.J. 45 (S.C.) and P. Ram Reddy and Ors. v. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad and Ors. , .
13. In Bhag Singh and Ors. v. Union Territory of Chandigarh , it was held that the State is bound to pay to those whose lands are compulsorily acquired the market value of the land and the market value has to be as was prevalent on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. To deny this benefit to such persons would tantamount to permitting the State to acquire the land on payment of less than the true market value.
14. In Adusumilli Gopalkrishna v. Spl. Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), it was held:-
"An assessment of the compensation payable for land acquired must take into account several factors, including the nature of the land, its present use and its capacity for a higher potential, its precise location in relation to adjoining land, the use to which neighbouring land has been put and the impact of such use on the land acquired, and so on."
15. Claim for comparable rates when higher rates are awarded in subsequent claim for adjoining lands acquired under the same notification was upheld by Supreme Court in Kirpa Rangiah v. Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition , .
16. In Nand Ram and Ors. v. The State of Haryana , JT 1988 (4) S.C. 260 it was held that State cannot refuse to pay in respect of the lands acquired under the same notification, compensation awarded to the land owners, whose similarly situated lands had been acquired under the same notification for the same purpose by the notification of the same date.
17. Similar principles were applied by Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 6667-85 of 1983 ( The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer v. Narayanswamappa (dead) through L.Rs. and another, ) and other connected appeals when Supreme Court proceeded to award similar compensation for two revenue estates adjacent to each other where lands were acquired under the same notification for same public purpose.
18. The very fact that land of village Chilla Saroda Bangar, which was acquired by the same notification in which land was acquired in Dallupura being adjacent to the said revenue estate, there being no difference in the location, situation, potentiality, advantage attached and other allied relevant factors, there is no reason that why there should be a departure since we fully agree with the ratio of the decision in Rattan Lal's case , (supra) and for that reason in Anil Kumar's case , (supra). We need not rely upon and fall back on the determination of the amount of compensation of village Gharauli, which is farthest and for which there is no evidence or material brought on record by the respondents that lands of village Gharauli were similarly situate having similar potentiality. There is positive evidence on record of the acquired land being similar to that acquired in villages Dallupura and Kondli.
19. On the basis of the ratio of the decisions aforementioned, it will not be inappropriate for us to uphold favorable consider the appellants claim that since land of village Dallupura was just touching the boundaries of village Chilla-Saroda-Bangar and the location, situation and potentiality being same, there is not reason to deprive the appellants of similar treatment since there was hardly any difference as regards advantages attached to the land situate within two revenue estates. There is no material or evidence brought on record even to contradict the stand of the appellants as regards the benefits, which were available to the land situate in village Chilla-Saroda-Bangar and to the lands of village Dallupura.
20. Consequently, the appeals are allowed with proportionate costs. The impugned awards are set aside. The claimants/appellants are held entitled to compensation at the market value of Rs. 345/- per sq. yard. In addition to the enhanced amount of market value, the claimants will be paid to solarium at 30% and interest at the rate of 9% p.a. for a period of one year from the date of Collector taking possession and thereafter at the rate of 15% p.a. till date of payment. Additional amount under Section 23(1A) of the Act will also be paid to them calculated at the rate of 12% p.a. on the market value for a period commencing on and from the date of publication of notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act to the date of award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land whichever is earlier. The claimants will also be paid interest on solarium and additional amount, in view of the decision of Supreme Court in Sunder v. Union of India , 2001 (60) D.R.J. 627 (SC).