Delhi High Court
Raghbir Singh And Ors vs Union Of India on 8 May, 2013
Author: V.K. Jain
Bench: V.K.Jain
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 08.05.2013
+ RFA 787/2002
RAGHBIR SINGH AND ORS
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Deepak Khosla, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Ms. K.
Kaomudi Kiran Pathak, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN
JUDGMENT
V.K.JAIN, J. (ORAL) The land of the appellants comprised in Khasra nos.58, 58/2, 58/1 and 2/2 min, totalling 10 bighas 15 biswas situated in the revenue estate of Village Shahbad Mohd. Pur, Delhi was notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act vide Notification dated 22.12.1987. The compensation in respect of the aforesaid land was fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector vide award no.26/89-90. The Land Acquisition Collector granted compensation @ Rs.15,000/- per bigha to the appellants. Since the appellants were not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, they sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. On such reference having been made, the learned Additional RFA 787/2002 Page 1 of 4 District Judge vide judgment dated 3.8.2002, enhanced the compensation to Rs.70,000/- per bigha. She also held that the appellants would be entitled to interest on the additional amount payable under Section 23-IA as well as on the amount of solatium. No cross objections have been filed against the order of learned Additional District Judge. The appellants, however, are not satisfied with the compensation awarded to them and are before this Court by way of this appeal.
2. When this matter was taken up for hearing on 30.8.2012, the learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak pointed out that in terms of the decision of this Court dated 2.11.1988 in LA APP. No.724/1995, 'Balak Ram vs. UOI, the compensation for the land in respect of this Village, acquired vide notification dated 27.1.1984 had been assessed at Rs.47,224/- per bigha and since the learned Additional District Judge had already awarded compensation at a much higher rate, the appeal deserves rejection on merits.
3. It transpires during the course of arguments that vide notification dated 1.4.1990, the Govt of NCT had fixed circle rate at Rs.4.65 lac per acre in respect of the levelled land of entire Delhi including the land of Village Shahbad Mohd. Pur, which is not disputed by Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for respondent-DDA. Mr. Pathak, however, submits that the aforesaid notification dated 1.4.90 was not produced during the course of hearing before the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi. The circle rate per bigha in terms of the notification dated 1.4.90 comes to Rs.16,875/- per bigha
4. Since the market value of the land in Village Shahbad, Modh. Pur, Delhi was assessed by this Court at Rs.47224/- in respect of the land notified vide notification dated 27.1.1984 and the Government fixed circle rate of the similar land at Rs 4.65 lakh per acre, as on 01.04.1990, it is evident that there has been appreciation in the market value of the aforesaid land to the extent of Rs.49,651/- per bigha between RFA 787/2002 Page 2 of 4 27.1.1984 and 1.4.1990. Broadly, the aforesaid appreciation comes to 105% between 27.1.84 to 1.4.90. On an approximate basis, the increase in the market value of the land in question during this period comes to Rs.1.42 % pre month. Therefore, in my view, it would only be just, fair and reasonable to award compensation to the appellants, taking the appreciation in the land value between 27.1.1984 to 22.12.1987 @ 1.42% per month. Computing accordingly, the market value per bigha, as on 22.12.1987 comes to Rs.78,740/- per bigha.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the correct method of computing market value would be to give return of 12% per annum on the land rate fixed by this Court as on 27.1.1984 meaning thereby that the appellants should be awarded compensation arrived at after adding simple interest @ 12% per annum to the market value of Rs.47,224/- as on 27.1.1984. He submits that even if for the sake of arguments, the interest is computed on compound basis, the amount of compensation would not come to Rs.73,545/- per bigha as on 22.12.1987. He further states that if the market value as on 22.12.1987 is computed taking into consideration simple interest @ 12% per annum, it comes to Rs.67,795/- per bigha as on 22.12.1987 which is much less than the compensation already awarded by the learned Additional District Judge.
6. In my view, it would not be appropriate to compute the market value of the land on the basis of interest, whether simple or compound, @ 12% per annum or at some other rate when a better evidence to assess such market value is available to the Court. It is only in the event of better evidence not being available that the Court could be justified in computing the market value on the basis of a particular rate of interest, thereby assuming that the market value of the land would have appreciated in line with the rate of interest applied by the Court. Since this Court assessed the market value on 27.1.1984 at Rs.47,224/- per bigha and the RFA 787/2002 Page 3 of 4 government itself accepted that the market value was Rs.96,875/- per bigha as on 1.4.1990, the Court certainly needs to prefer the market value computed on the basis of the circle rate fixed by the government instead of taking recourse to the formula based on application of a particular rate of interest, whether simple or compound.
7. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the appeal is allowed to the extent that the market value of the land of the appellants notified vide notification dated 22.12.1987 in Village Shahbad Mohd Pur, Delhi is fixed at Rs.78,740 per bigha. The appellants shall also be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum for the first year and thereafter @ 15% per annum till the date of payment, on the amount of compensation as well as on the additional amount under Section 23-IA of the Land Acquisition Act and the amount of solatium. While calculating interest, adjustment shall be made for the amount already paid to the appellants. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
V.K. JAIN, J MAY 08, 2013/rd RFA 787/2002 Page 4 of 4