Delhi District Court
Sh. Vinod Kumar vs Union Of India Through on 30 October, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. AMIT KUMAR:
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE : ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
LAC No. 127A/08
UID 02404C0054382008
IN RE :
SH. VINOD KUMAR
S/O LATE DEEP CHAND
R/O VILLAGE TIKRI KHURD,
DELHI
...... PETITIONER
Versus
1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR,
NORTH WEST,
DELHI.
2. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
DELHI.
........RESPONDENTS
Award No. 07/2003-04
Village TIKRI KHURD
Date of Award/ Date of
Announcement of Award 25.06.2003
Notification U/S 4 F.10(4)/97/L&B/LA/7329
dt. 22.08.2001
Notification U/s 6 F.10(4)/97/L&B/LA/7910
dt. 26.07.2002
Date of Receipt of Reference : 07.11.2008
Date of Arguments : 21.10.2013
Date of Decision :30.10.2013
REFERENCE PETITION UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE
LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894
JUDGMENT
LAC No.127A/08 Page 1 of 26
1. This reference under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as LA Act), was sent to the reference court by the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred as LAC).
2. A large tract of Land measuring 306 bigha 17 biswa of village Tikri Khurd, Delhi, was acquired by the Govt. for a public purpose namely "development of Freight Complex at Narela, Delhi under Planned Development of Delhi". Notification under Section 4 of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'LA Act') was issued on 22.08.2001. Declaration under Section 6 was made on 26.07.2002; Thereafter, Award bearing no. 07/2003-04 was announced by Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as LAC) on 25.06.2003. The LAC determined the market price of the acquired land as Rs.15,70,000/- per acre for land falling in Block 'A', and Rs.12,30,000/- per acre for land falling in 'C' Block.
2.1 The petitioner being dissatisfied with the market value determined by the LAC, filed the present petition u/s 18 of the LA Act, seeking reference to this court. The Land Acquisition Collector forwarded the same to this court, for adjudication.
3. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner are the owners/bhumidars of the land as mentioned in the reference u/s 18 LA Act situated within the Revenue Estate of Village Tikri Khurd, Delhi (the said land).
4. The petitioners have challenged the said award on the following grounds :
i) that method of assessment adopted by the LAC is imaginary LAC No.127A/08 Page 2 of 26 and based upon the Govt. policy, whereas the market value should have been assessed and determined by the LAC strictly as per provisions of section 23-24 of Land Acquisition Act;
ii) that LAC has failed to consider that the land is adjacent to the road and has commercial value;
iii) that DDA has increased the rate of alternative plots from Rs.
750/- to Rs.4,000/- per sq. yards;
iv) that LAC has failed to consider that the land have all civic amenities like water, electricity, metalled roads, general market, post office, banking facility, hospitals, Higher Secondary Schools, fire station, telephone exchange, Narela Railway Station, Police Station Narela, DSIDC Indl. Area Narela, Narela Anaj Mandi;
v) that many palatial farm houses are in the close vicinity of the revenue estate of village Holambi Kalan, Kureni, etc.
5. The petitioner prayed the compensation as under: -
i. Rs.10,000/- per sq. yard, besides interest @ 24%, additional amount @ 20% on enhanced amount as per law with other statutory benefits;
ii. Rs.1000 per quintal for trees;
iii. Rs.1,00,000/- as severing charges; iv. Rs.1,00,000/- for damages done.
6. The reference petition was contested by Union of India (hereinafter referred to as 'UOI') as well as Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "DDA").
7. Both the respondents have filed their written statement, in which they had taken many objections to the claim filed by the petitioners. Respondents in their Written Statements have stated that land in question was not surrounded by any developed or under developed colony and can only be used for agricultural purpose and there is no structure, tree or tubewell on the land in question. It is further stated that compensation awarded by LAC is adequate and just on the basis of market rate and therefore reference is liable to be dismissed.
LAC No.127A/08 Page 3 of 268. During the admission-denial of documents, petitioner has admitted statement u/s 19 of Land Acquisition Act sent by LAC.
9. After the completion of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any enhancement in compensation. If so, to what amount ?
2. Relief.
10. In support of his claim, the petitioners have examined 11 witnesses.
Petitioner has examined himself as PW1 and tendered the affidavit Ex.P1. He has also relied upon the documents Mark A to R and khasra girdawari Ex. PW1/A to Ex.PW1/E. PW2 Ved Prakash, Naib Tehsildar from Land and Building Department has proved the policies for fixation of minimum price of agricultural land in Union Territory of Delhi as Ex.PW2/1 to PW2/6.
PW3 Jugraj, UDC, Sub Registrar Office Pitampura has proved the sale deeds Ex. PW3/1 to Ex. PW3/6.
PW4 Balraj Singh, Halka Patwari, Village Tikri Khurd has proved the Aks Sizra Ex. PW4/1 and khasra girdawari for the year Ex.PW4/2 to Ex. PW4/4.
PW5 Rana Pratap Singh Clerk from the office of Sub -Registrar, has proved the sale deeds Ex. PW5/1 to Ex.PW5/3.
LAC No.127A/08 Page 4 of 26PW6 Jagmal Singh, LDC, LAB (Residential), Vikas Sadan, DDA has proved the allotment letters Ex.PW6/1 to Ex.PW6/3.
PW7 Kamla Sharma, Asstt. Grade -I, DSIDC has proved the perpetual lease deed Ex. PW7/1, allotment letter of plot no. 3335 Ex. PW7/2, possession letter Ex.PW7/3, application form applied for allotment of plot Ex.PW7/4, eligibility letter for allotment of industrial plot under the relocation scheme Ex.PW7/5.
PW8 Ghanshyam, Patwari from Office, Kanjhawala has proved list of previous awards of village Mamurpur, Narela, Bhorgarh, Kureni, Sanoth, Tikri Khurd, Holambi Kalan, Holambi Khurd, Shahpur, Khera Khurd, Khera Kalan, Alipur as Ex. PW8/1.
PW9 P.R. Sethi, Deputy Commissioner, MCD Narela Zone has brought the list of motels sanctioned by Building Headquarter, MCD and list of sanctioned farm houses upto 31.07.09 as Mark X and Mark Y. PW10 Ram Babu, LDC Building Headquarter, North Delhi Municipal Corporation, Civic Centre has proved the list of sanctioned motels and farm houses in Narela Zone and list of farm houses sanctioned by building (HQ) of new formed, North DMC with a status report as Ex. PW10/1.
PW11 Kulbir Singh, AE, Building Head Quarter, Civic Centre has also proved the document Ex.PW10/1.
11. On the other hand respondent had not lead any evidence only tendered the copy of the award as Ex. R1 and certified copies of sale LAC No.127A/08 Page 5 of 26 deed Ex.R2 to R9.
12. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have also carefully considered the record. My issue-wise findings are given hereinafter.
13. FINDINGS ON ISSUE NO. 1 :-
There is no mathematical formula to determine the market value of the acquired land and certain guess work has to be applied while determining the market value. There are various methods for determining the market value such as:
i) income accrued from the land
ii) comparable sale instances
iii) opinion of expert.
Recently in Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Kargowda and others Civil Appeal no. 3838 of 2010 @ SLP (C) No. 20767 of 2008 dated 26.04.2010, 2010 AD (SC) 345 Lordship has observed that normally following method are adopted to determine the market value such as
a) Sales Statistics Method.
b) Capitalization of Net Income method
c) Agricultural yield basis method, which method is to be adopted depend upon facts and circumstances of the case.
In the present case LAC has determined the market value of the land of the petitioner on the basis of the minimum rate of agricultural land fixed by Govt. through its policy dated 09.08.2001 which was LAC No.127A/08 Page 6 of 26 applicable from 01.04.2001 and determined the market value of land at the rate of Rs.15,70,000/- per acre for category 'A' land.
"In a policy announcement which came into effect from the financial year 2001-02, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi fixed the indicative prices of agricultural land @ Rs.15,70,000 per acre for the acquisition of agricultural land vide their order no. F.9(20)/80/L&B/LA/6696 dated 09.08.2001 which are applicable with effect from 01.04.2001.
In view of the absence of any documentary evidences on record to the contrary, I find Rs.15,70,000/- per acre to be the most reasonable price for the best kind, i.e. land falling in 'A' Block as on 01.04.2001. The notification under section 4 was issued on 22.08.2001 and the price of the land is to be determined as on the date of notification Under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act itself. I accordingly, determine the market value of the land @ Rs.15,70,000/- per acer."
Petitioner's counsel has contended that LAC has not adopted correct method and did not taken into consideration various sale deed placed before LAC and he has also not considered future potentiality of the land due to large scale development in and around the petitioner's land due to which he is entitle to much higher compensation than what LAC has awarded.
14. Petitioners being not satisfied with said award, has contended that the criteria adopted by LAC for fixing the land rate for Government policy is not appropriate. The onus is on the petitioners to prove that petitioners are entitle to higher market value as it was held in State of UP & Anothers Vs. Rajender Singh AIR 1996 SC 1564, Hon'ble Supreme Court Judge held that "the onus is on the petitioners to prove that their lands are capable of fetching higher compensation then what has been determine by the LAC and that he is entitle for LAC No.127A/08 Page 7 of 26 enhance compensation."
15. One of the method to determine the market value is income generated from land. The petitioner has contended that he is farmer. But to ascertain the market value on the basis of agriculture income there must be something on record i.e. the annual yield and annual income from the land. Though it is proved that petitioner was earning his livelihood from his agricultural land but he has failed to prove that what income he was earning as neither he has produced any evidence that what was his total produce from the land nor has stated that what was his total profit after deducting expenses of agriculture. The onus was on the petitioner to prove his income from the land. But from the evidence produced it cannot be ascertained what was his income to determine the land value on the basis of agricultural income. In view of the above, I hold that petitioner has failed to led sufficient evidence to support his claim for enhancement of market value on the basis of agricultural yield.
16. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has contended that acquired land has great future potentiality which LAC has failed to appreciate. He has contended that land of the village Tikri Khurd & surrounding land of adjoining village like village Rajapur Kalan, Bhorgarh, Narela, Mamurpur, Khera Khurd, Kureni, Sanoth, Holambi Kalan, Shahpurgari, Khera Kalan etc. also acquired through various awards Ex.PW8/1 (Colly). Petitioner's counsel has further contended that this acquired land has been acquired for development of Freight Complex at Narela and massive development has been done in the acquired land due to which future potentiality of the land of the petitioner has increased rapidly, as his land is adjacent to acquired land, therefore, his land deserve a very high market price.
LAC No.127A/08 Page 8 of 2617. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has relied Sizra of land of the village Tikri Khurd, to show that village Tikri Khurd touches the boundary of village Singhola, Kureni, Shahpurgari, Khampur, Bhorgarh, Bhorgarh, Sanoth, Rajapur Kalan. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that since his land is adjacent to the Narela Industrial Complex, therefore, it has acquired great potentiality and same is suitable for any kind of use like residential, commercial or industrial and thus same can fetch up much higher price if sold in market.
18. I have heard the arguments and perused the evidence produced by the petitioner as well as by the respondent. There is no doubt that acquired land is situated near the developed residential and industrial are developed by DSIDC which has certainly increase the future potentiality of the land in question but can petitioner claim the same rate at which DSIDC has sold their plot or rate determined by DSIDC are relevant to determine the market value. This question has been recently answered by Supreme Court in case titled as 'Lal Chand Vs. UOI VII (2009) SLT 439 decided on 12.08.2009. In this case Hon'ble Justice Ravinderan while dealing with the various appeal pertaining to village Rithala has held that "7. On careful consideration, we are of the view that such 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 layout 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 th 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 LAC No.127A/08 Page 9 of 26 th eland loser. Thirdly, we are concerned with market value of free hold 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 of 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 layout 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 development 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 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 because in an unauthorised layouts, usually no land will be set apart for parks, play ground and community facilities. Even if any land is set apart, it is likely to be minimal. The roads and drain will also be narrower, just adequate or movement of vehicles. The amount spent on development work would also be comparatively 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 layout will be different. As the industrial plots will be large (say of the size of one or two acres or more as contrasted with size of residential plots measuring 100 sq. me to 200 LAC No.127A/08 Page 10 of 26 sq.m) and as there will be very limited civic amenities and no play grounds, the area to be set apart for development (for roads, park, play grounds 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% and 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 of 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 layout, 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 layout 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, play grounds and community/civic amenities. The purpose of the aforesaid examples is only to show that the 'deduction of 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 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 LAC No.127A/08 Page 11 of 26 sq. m. for members of low income group, Rs.200/- per sq. m. for person 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 factors: 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, sometimes there is a tendency among public to equate the lease premium rate (allotment price) charged by DDA, as beign 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."
In a recent judgment Laxmi Narain Bansal etc. Vs. UOI, RFA No. 677/1994 decided on 30.09.2008 and Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi while relying upon judgment Ranvir Singh Vs. UOI (2005) 12 (SCC) 59 Hon'ble Judge has observed that the judgment of Ranvir Singh culled out the principles as follows:
a) Market value of the acquired land has to be assessed not only having regard to the comparable sales method but also having regard to the size of the land or other features thereof and several other relevant factors.LAC No.127A/08 Page 12 of 26
b) The market value of fully developed land cannot be compared with a wholly undeveloped land and even when they are adjoining or situated at a little distance.
While laying down this principle, the court commented upon the incorrect approach by the High Court to the contrary in the following words.
"25 The High Court without having regard to different sizes and different categories of land separately took into consideration the value of 48 sq.m. Of land at the rate of Rs.150 per sq. m. It keeping in view the fact that the Delhi Development Authority sought to create leasehold right whereas upon acquisition of land a freehold rights would be created, multiplied the said figure by two and arrived at a conclusion that the market value of 1 sq. m. of land at Rohini would be Rs.300/-. The means figure thereof was taken at Rs.200/- per sq. m. as wholesale price of freehold plots in a developed condition. From the said Rs.200, 60% had been deducted towards costs of development and considering the large extent of land, the retail market price was worked out at Rs.80 per sq. m.
26. While adopting the said method, in our opinion, the High Court committed manifest errors. The market value of a fully developed land cannot be compared with a wholly underdeveloped land although they may be adjoining or situated at a little distance. For determining the market value it is trite, the nature of the lands plays an important role."
c) What price is fetched after full development cannot be the basis for fixing compensation in respect of the land which was agricultural (reliance was placed on Bhim Singh Vs. State of Haryana, (2003) 10 SCC 529).
d) For determining the market value, the sale deeds pertaining to portion of lands which are subject to acquisition would be the most relevant piece of evidence for assessing the market value of the acquired lands. Even market conditions prevailing as on the date of notification are relevant.
e) Sale price in respect of small piece of land cannot be the basis for determination of the market value of a large stretch of land, isolated deed of sale showing a very high price cannot be the sole basis for LAC No.127A/08 Page 13 of 26 determining the market value. The court referred to the earlier judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. Ram Phool (2003) 10 SCC 167, wherein the judgment of this court granting compensation on the basis of sale price in respect of a small piece of land was set aside observing as under:
"6...It has been held in a catena of decision of this Court that the sale price in respect of a small bit of transaction would not be the determinative factor for deciding the market value of a vast stretch of land. As has been stated earlier, the extent of land acquired in the case in hand i.e. 5484 bighas. In that view of the matter, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High Court has wholly erred in relying upon Exhibit A-1 in determining the market value of the acquired land extending to 5484 bighas. Since the onus is on the claimant to lead evidence on the determination of market value and if Exhibit A-1, is taken out of consideration, then there is no residue of evidence on which the determination made by the High court enhancing the compensation awarded by the Reference Court should be sustained."
f) A judgment of Award determining the amount of compensation is not conclusive. It would merely be a piece of evidence. There cannot be any fixed criteria for determining the increase in the value of land at a fixed rate.
g) It was not necessary that the value of the freehold lands would be double the value of the leasehold lands. There has to be some basis for such a conclusion. This observation was made while commenting upon the perpetual lease deed executed by the DDA in respect of Rohini itself, after the development, as is clear from para 28 of the judgment, which reads as under:
"28. The High Court did not consider any relevant criteria on the basis whereof it could come to the conclusion that the value of the freehold lands would be double the value of the leasehold lands. The fact that in terms of the brochure the leasehold was to be perpetual one and the ground rent payable thereof was absolutely nomina being Re.1 per plot per annum for the first five years and LAC No.127A/08 Page 14 of 26 thereafter at the rate 2- ½% of the total amount of premium, which was to be enhanced only after every 30 years, was relevant factor which should have been taken into consideration for arriving at a finding in that behalf. It is worth noting that the terms and conditions were set out for sale by the Delhi Development Authority on behalf of the President of India of perpetual leasehold rights in the residential plots under the Rohini Scheme.
29. A large amount of money was spent for development of Rohini over a period of 20 years. A large area has been earmarked for schools, hospitals, community halls, etc. May other advantages were also provided. In law it may be perceived that the scheme floated by DDA may not be viable and as such the possibility of reduction of the rate at a future date could not be ruled out."
Reference in this regard can also be made to the dictum of Hon'ble High Court in American Universal Electric (India) Ltd. Vs. UOI 2001 II AD (Delhi) 867, wherein it was held that that there could be hardly any comparison between an undeveloped agricultural land, though intended to be used for residential purpose and that of a developed one. In R.P. Singh Vs. Union of India AIR 2005 SC 4189 it was held that "Contention raised by the counsel for appellant that they should be paid higher compensation because the respondents were now selling the land at the rate of Rs.25 lac per bigha cannot be accepted. Counsel for the respondent has brought the notice that the land is now fully developed and for its development respondent have spent a lot of money and the claimant would not be entitle to a higher price simply after 40 years of acquisition and its development, the land was being sold at higher price."
In view of the above I held that land rate which was fixed by DDA or DSIDC for allotting plot cannot used as evidence for the purpose of determining market rate of agricultural land as in the LAC No.127A/08 Page 15 of 26 case of petitioner's land. Hence, petitioners have failed to prove their case for enhancement of compensation on this ground.
19. As far as the circle rates notified by the Delhi Government from time to time are concerned, it is sufficient to note that circle rates notified in circulars issued by Delhi Government in the policies of fixing rates of stamp duty are not admissible in evidence for which reliance can be placed on Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sahaswan, District Badaun through its Secretary V. Bipin Kumar and Another, I (2004) SLT 422=I (2004) CLT 400 (SC) =(2004) 2 SCC 283]; Painder Singh and Others v. Union of India and Others, (1995) 5 SCC 310; U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow through its Chairman and Another v. Kalra Propeties (P) Ltd., Lucknow and Others v. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad and Others (1995) 2 SCC 305; Land Acquisition Officer, Eluru and Others v. Jasti Rohini (Smt.) and Another, (1995) 1 SCC 717; and Jawajee Nagnatham v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad, A.P. and Others, (1994) 4 SCC 595, which were relied by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its subsequent judgment titled as Ranvir Singh and Another V. Union of India VI (2005) SLT 683 =123 (2005) DLT 252 (SC)=III (2005) CLT 298 (SC)= (2005) 12 SCC. Therefore, entire material placed on record by petitioner viz-a-viz circle rate notified for fixing the stamp duty cannot be considered at all.
20. Now coming to the sale deed relied upon by the petitioner. Before analyzing the sale deeds it is important to note the law to be considered while relying upon the sale deeds. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Nookala Rajamallu reported as (2003) 12 SCC 334, in order to adopt the price reflected in the sale deed, the following LAC No.127A/08 Page 16 of 26 conditions are required to be met:
"9. It can be broadly stated that the element of speculation is reduced to a minimum if the underlying principles of fixation of market value with reference to comparable sales are made:
(i) when sale is within a reasonable time of the date of notification under Section 4(1);
(ii) it should be a bona fide transaction;
(iii) it should be of the land acquired or of the land adjacent to the land acquired; and
(iv) it should possess similar advantages
10. It is only when these factors are present, it can merit a consideration as a comparable case (see Special Land Acquisition Officer v. T. Adinarayan Setty AIR 1959 SC
429)."
21. Further in case of Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1991) 4 SCC 195, in para 10, this Court observed as under:
"10. When the Courts are called upon to fix the market value of the land in compulsory acquisition, the best evidence of the value of property is the sale of the acquired land to which the claimant himself is a party, in its absence the sales of the neighbouring lands. In proof of the sale transaction, the relationship of the parties to the transaction, the market conditions, the terms of the sale and the date of the sale are to be looked into. These features would be established by examining either the vendor or vendee and if they are not available, the attesting witnesses who have personal knowledge of the transaction, etc. The original sale deed or certified copy thereof should be tendered as evidence. The underlying principle to fix a fair market value with reference to comparable sales is to reduce the element of speculation. In a comparable sale the features are : 1) it must be within reasonable time of the date of notification ; 2) it should be a bona fide transaction; 3) it should be a sale of the land acquired or land adjacent to the land acquired and 4) it should possess similar advantages. These should be LAC No.127A/08 Page 17 of 26 established by adduction of material evidence by examining as stated above the parties to the sale or persons having personal knowledge of the sale transactions. The proof also would focus on the fact whether the transactions are genuine and bona fide transactions."
22. Further Hon'ble High Court in Jai Singh Vs. UOI LA Appeal no. 266/08 in para 22 has held that :
"22. As held in the decisions reported as 1995 (1) SCC 717 Land Acquisition Officer Eluru & Ors. Vs. Jsti Rohini & Anr. (Refer para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC 369 Mohd.
Raufuddin Vs. Land Acquisition Officer (Refer para 13) sale transactions evidenced in a sale deed which are tendered in evidence by virtue of Section 51A of the L.A.Act 1894 have not to be ipso facto treated as an exemplar sale deed to determine the market value of land in an area for the reason there may be special circumstances which have led the buyer to pay a higher price. The true test is the price which a well informed willing buyer would pay to an equally well informed seller without being influenced by any special circumstances or the fancy to buy a particular piece of land. An informed buyer would be one who has studied the market and has apprised himself of all available land in the area; has understood the topology of the area and the prevailing prices. If a buyer has a fancy for a particular piece of land, he may pay a much higher price and this would not be a good index of fair market value of the lands in the area. "
23. In view of this law, let us now consider the sale deeds relied upon by the petitioner. On examination of sale deed Ex. PW3/1 to Ex. PW3/4 are the sale deeds of village Mamurpur executed by same vendor Suraj Bhan in favour of same vendee i.e. Radha Swami Satsang, land has been sold at the rate of Rs. 2,67,50,000/- per acre. No vendor or LAC No.127A/08 Page 18 of 26 vendee has been examined by the petitioner to prove the genuineness of sale deed. In these sale deeds land is being used for religious purpose. Since, purpose of purchase of the land by Radha Swami Satsang was religious, therefore, it cannot be ruled out that they might have paid extra sum for purchasing the land as it suits their purpose. Considering this, it would not appropriate to adopt these sale deeds for the purpose of determining the market value in this case.
24. With regard to sale deeds of Khera Khurd Ex. PW3/5 and Ex.PW3/6, the onus was on the petitioner to prove that sale deed are genuine and not sham and are not of inflated price, but petitioner had not examined either the vendor or the vendee to discharge the said burden. On perusal of sale deed of village Khera Khurd, I found that in first sale deed sale consideration was Rs. Thirty Two Lac Forty Thousand whereas in second sale deed it was Rs. Four lac but in the sale deed it is not mentioned that how sale consideration was paid. If it was paid by cheque or draft then why no cheque /draft number is mentioned of paying such huge amount in cash, then it is quite unnatural to carry such a huge sum before Sub- Registrar. Further paying such a huge amount in cash is in violation of provision of Income Tax Act. Further in the sale deed nothing is mentioned, how the vendor was the owner of land, whether he had purchased the land or was bhumidhar through allotment etc. as vendor cannot be owner by inheritance being a NGO. If vendor has purchased the land then in how much amount same has been purchased. These details are necessary to ascertain whether sale transaction was genuine or not. In the absence of same it would not be safe to rely upon to determine market value.
25. Further since both the vendor and vendee are non-government organization, purpose of purchase of land would not be to cultivate as LAC No.127A/08 Page 19 of 26 it is not expected from a non-government Christian Organization which is running a home for destitute lady to carry out agricultural activity, whereas acquired land is purely agricultural. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that land under sale deed had permission to use for non- agricultural purpose. The sale deed Ex.PW3/5 gives a price of Rs. 1180/- per sq. yards whereas Ex. PW3/6 gives a price of Rs.864/- per sq. yards. None of these sale deeds are of village Tikri Khurd and none of them are in proximity of date of notification. These sale deeds executed by one religious institution in favour of another religious institution and have already been held to be not reliable in case Jai Singh Vs. UOI being the purchaser having fancing for the land in question. The other sale deeds Ex. PW5/1 to Ex. PW5/4 cannot be looked upon for determining the market value as same were executed after the date of notification in the present case. Therefore, these sale deeds cannot be relied upon.
26. With regard to sale deed relied upon by UOI, ld. Counsel for petitioner has contended that sale deed relied upon by UOI are of depreciated value to avoid stamp duty.
27. On perusal of sale deed, I found that sale deed Ex.R2 gives the market price @ Rs.28/- per sq. yards., Ex. R3 gives market rate @ Rs. 19/- per sq. yard, Ex.R4 & R5 gives market value @ Rs.108/- per sq. yard, Ex.R6 gives market rate @ Rs.57 per sq. yard and Ex. R7 gives market rate @ Rs.36/- per sq. yard. These sale deed have been executed at rate less than the minimum price of agriculture land determined by Government in its policy. Hence, it cannot be ruled out that sale deed might have been executed at such rate only to avoid stamp duty. Sale deed Ex. R8 and R9 are of land of lal dora, and the market value of the agricultural land and lal dora land are always LAC No.127A/08 Page 20 of 26 different. In such circumstances it would not be safe to determine the market value of such large area on the basis of these sale deed. Hence, in view of above I hold that sale deeds relied upon by both petitioner and respondents are not reliable. Hence market value cannot be determine on the basis of sale transaction. Therefore, I held that petitioner is not entitle to any enhancement on the basis of sale transaction.
28. Hon'ble High Court in its latest judgment, Jai Singh Vs. UOI LA Appeal no. 266/08 decided on 23.08.11, has determined the market value of the village Holambi Kalan, Rajapur Kalan, Holambi Khurd, Alipur as Rs.16,74,500/- per acre for category 'A' land and Rs. 16,43,811/- per acre for category 'B' land. Relevant para is reproduced below:
Village Holambi Kalan Notification dated 22.8.2001
74. With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is Rs.15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e. 22.8.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C' lands, land price per acre comes to Rs.17,74,109/-, rounded off to Rs.17,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to Rs.18.2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to Rs.18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 22.8.2001; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Holambi Kalan comes to `16,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to Rs.
16,32,637.50 per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting that the learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done away with Category ‗B' lands and uniform price awarded is `16,43,811/- per acre, the price differential worked out by me comes to a meager `9,000/- per acre and thus qua Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference Court.
LAC No.127A/08 Page 21 of 2675. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the appeals filed by land owners in respect whereof grid has been prepared and labeled as 'GRID-F' & 'GRID-G' hereinabove are dismissed.
76. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners in appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by decreeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village Holambi Kalan pertaining to the notification dated 22.8.2001 in sum of Rs. 16,74,500/- per acre and for Category 'B' lands the compensation awarded at Rs.16,43,811/- per acre is maintained and thus such appeals or cross references which pertain to Category 'B' lands are dismissed.
77. Pertaining to such appeal where the compensation stands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs.UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost.
Village Ali Pur Notification dated 22.8.2001
78. With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is Rs.15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e. 22.8.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C' lands, land price per acre comes to Rs.17,74,109/-, rounded off to Rs.17,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to Rs.18.2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5%, the prices comes to Rs.18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 22.8.2001; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Ali Pur comes to Rs.16,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to Rs.16,32,637.50 per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting that the learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done away with Category 'B' lands and uniform price awarded is Rs. 16,43,811/- per acre, the price differential worked out by me comes to a meager Rs.9,000/- per acre and thus qua LAC No.127A/08 Page 22 of 26 Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference Court.
Village Rajapur Kalan Notification dated 22.8.2001
84. With reference to the notification dated 9.8.2001 wherein with effect from 1.4.2001 minimum price notified per acre is Rs.15.70 lakhs per acre and requiring said price to be suitably updated to reach the date of the notification i.e. 22.8.2001 and with reference to the sale deed dated 25.5.2002 wherein for Category 'C' lands, land price per acre comes to Rs.17,74,109/-, rounded off to Rs.17,75,000/- per acre, and for Category 'B' lands increasing the same by 2.5% the price comes to Rs.18.2 lakhs per acre and further increasing by 2.5% the prices comes to Rs.18,65,500/- per acre for Category 'A' lands; and decreasing the said prices by 11% to reflect the price with reference to the sale deed for the date 22.8.2001; the mean average price for Category 'A' lands in village Rajapur Kalan comes to Rs.16,74,500/- per acre and decreasing the same by 2.5%, it comes to Rs. 16,32,637.50 per acre for Category 'B' lands. Noting that the learned Reference Court has, without any reasons, done away with Category 'B' lands and uniform price awarded is Rs.16,43,811/- per acre, the price differential worked out by me comes to a meager `9,000/- per acre and thus qua Category 'B' lands I maintain the amount awarded by the learned Reference Court.
85. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the Union of India and cross objections wherever filed by Union of India in the appeals filed by land owners in respect whereof grid has been prepared and labeled as 'GRID-J' hereinabove are dismissed.
86. All Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the land owners and cross-objections filed by the land owners i n appeals filed by Union of India are allowed by decreeing compensation payable for Category 'A' lands in village Rajapur Kalan pertaining to the notification dated 22.8.2001 in sum of Rs. 16,74,500/- per acre and for Category 'B' lands the compensation awarded at Rs.16,43,811/- per acre is maintained and thus such appeals or cross references which pertain to Category 'B' lands are dismissed.
87. Pertaining to such appeal where the compensation stands enhanced statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as explained in the judgment reported as Sunder Vs. UOI 2001 (93) DLT 569 shall be granted, LAC No.127A/08 Page 23 of 26 except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal or cross objection, for which period of delay no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These appellants or cross objectors would be entitled to proportionate cost."
29. In the said case Hon'ble Justice has also discussed the topography of the villages in para no. 1:
1. 10 villages; namely, Pooth Khurd, Holambi Kalan, Holambi Khurd, Bawana, Khera Khurd, Narela, Ali Pur, Rajapur Kalan, Shahpur Garhi and Sanoth are comprised in the Revenue District (North-West) and if we see the map of the city of Delhi we would find that these villages lie in the North-Western part of Delhi. They lie within an area between the 'V' formed by Rohtak Road i.e. NH-10 and G.T.Karnal Road i.e. NH-1. The Delhi-Ambala railway line runs somewhat parallel to NH-1.
Whereas villages Narela and Shahpur Garhi are in between the railway line and NH-1, the other villages are on the opposite side of the railway line i.e. towards the west of the railway line. Narela and Shahpur Garhi are towards the east of the railway line. The urbanized city of Delhi where the colony Rohini exists has been developed on the agricultural lands acquired post 1961 and is situated in the land within the aforesaid 'V'. Bawana Industrial Estate came up on lands which were acquired post 1996 and said Industrial Estate is also on the land within the aforesaid 'V'. Historically, except for village Narela, all villages have been treated as equivalent with respect to their location."
PW4 his cross examination has stated that as per sizra village Tikri Khurd is surrounded by the lands of village Shahpurgarhi, Khampur, Bhorgarh, Singhola, Kureni, Mamurpur, Narela etc. Thus village Tikri Khurd surrounded by the villages whose market value has already been determined in the Jai Singh (supra) case. No evidence has been LAC No.127A/08 Page 24 of 26 led by the respondents to prove that petitioner's land has any other locational disadvantages then the land of these villages. Thus it is proved that location and potentiality of the land of village Tikri Khurd is almost similar to villages whose market value has been determined in Jai Singh case.
The land pertains to the notification dated 22.08.2001 and same award. Therefore, there is no ground to go differently then what the High Court of Delhi has held in Jai Singh case. The petitioners would be entitled to market value @ Rs.16,74,500/- per acre as determined in Jai Singh case for category 'A' land as the land is of category 'A'.
30. The petitioner have also claimed compensation for damages to crops and vegetables, trees etc. The petitioner has not led any evidence to prove that they are entitle to any compensation for the same. The petitioner in the absence of any cogent evidence is not entitled to any compensation for the same.
31. The petitioner shall also be entitled to statutory benefits i.e. 12% additional amount u/s 23 (1-A), 30% solatium u/s 23 (2) and interest @ 9% for the first year & 15% for subsequent years till the making of payment of enhanced compensation by the LAC as per section 28 of LA Act.
32. In view of above issue no. 1 is decided as below : -
i) Petitioner shall be entitled to enhance compensation @ Rs.16,74,500/- per acre for the land mentioned in category 'A' as per statement u/s 19 LA Act.
33. Issue no. 2 - RELIEF LAC No.127A/08 Page 25 of 26
i) Market value of the land is fixed @ Rs. 16,74,500/- per acre as mentioned in category 'A' as per statement u/s 19 LA Act.
i) Additional amount u/s 23 (1A) of the Act @ 12% p.a. from the date of notification u/s 4 of the Act till the date of award or dispossession, whichever is earlier.
ii) Solatium u/s 23(2) of LA Act @ 30% on the enhanced amount of compensation.
iii) Interest under Section 28 of LA Act at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year from the date of dispossession and at the rate of 15% per annum on the difference between the enhanced compensation awarded by this court and the compensation awarded by the LAC for the subsequent period till the payment.
34. The reference is disposed of accordingly. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (AMIT KUMAR)
today on 30.10.13 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE;
DELHI
LAC No.127A/08 Page 26 of 26