Delhi High Court
Sh. Laxmi Narain Bansal Etc.Etc. vs Union Of India on 30 September, 2008
Author: A.K. Sikri
Bench: A.K.Sikri, Manmohan Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No. 677/1994
along with
RFA Nos. 748/1994, 42/1995, 49/1995, 101/1995, 102/1995
109/1995, 128/1995, 202/1995, 203/1995, 205/1995, 216/1995
219/1995, 220/1995, 221/1995, 222/1995, 226/1995, 241/1995
258/1995, 274/1995, 281/1995, 288/1995, 297/1995, 326/1995
328/1995, 329/1995, 334/1995, 335/1995, 346/1995, 347/1995
351/1995, 352/1995, 353/1995, 364/1995, 371/1995, 385/1995
389/1995, 460/1995, 565/1995, 574/1995, 585/1995, 635/1995
701/1995, 756/1995, 757/1995, 802/1995, 815/1995, 818/1995
825/1995, 870/1995, 1006/1995, 145/1996, 300/1998, 109/1999
137/1999, 147/1995, 315/1995, 188/1995, 315/1995, 515/1998
519/1998, 44/2000, 62/2000, 63/2000, 572/2002, 296/2003
LA.App. Nos. 134/2004, 23/2007, 28/2007, 88/2007, 104/2007
36/2004, 62/2004, 136/2004, 166/2004, 200/2004, 225/2004
RFA Nos. 543/2001, 551/2001, 556/2001, 129/2002, 131/2002
304/2002, 448/2002, 481/2002, 497/2002, 360/1988 & 554/1988
Date of Hearing:26.09.2008
Date of Decision: 30.09.2008
#Sh. Laxmi Narain Bansal etc.etc. .....Appellants
! Through: Mr.Roop Chand with
Mr. Sanjay Rana for the appellants in
RFA Nos. 101, 102, 109, 202, 205, 216
219, 297 & 329/1995.
Mr. Rajiv Dewan for the appellants in
RFA Nos. 258, 364, 385, 389, 565, 574
635, 701/1995 & 137/1999.
Mr. Deepak Khosla for the appellants in
RFA Nos. 677, 748/1994, 42, 49, 128 of
1995, 220, 221, 222, 226, 274, 281/95
145/1996 & 147/1995
Versus
$Union of India .....Respondents
Through Mr.Sanjay Poddar
CORAM :-
*THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
RFA No.677/94 and batch Page 1
1.Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to
see the Judgment?
2.To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
A.K. SIKRI, J.
:
1. In all these appeals filed by various appellants they are claiming enhancement of the compensation, over and above what is awarded by the learned ADJs in the reference petitions filed by them under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The appellants were the land owners of different pockets of land situate in Village Sahibabad Daulatpur, Delhi, which was acquired by the respondents for public purpose. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 23.6.1989; declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 8.9.1989 and the Collector (Land Acquisition) made his Award No.5/91-92 on 6.9.1991.
2. In his award the LAC classified the land in two categories, namely, block A and block B. Land, which was not used for agriculture/ horticulture was put in block A and the remaining land, which was not cultivable or bhatta grounds etc. were put in block B. Market value of land in block A was offered at Rs.84,620/- per bigha and for the remaining land in block B offer was at Rs.30,000/- per bigha. Market value for land falling in block A was fixed on the basis of guidelines laid down in the letter of the Joint Secretary (L&B), Delhi Administration dated 3.5.1990 fixing minimum price for agricultural land with effect from 27.4.1990 at the rate of Rs.4,65,000/- per acre. For the land, RFA No.677/94 and batch Page 2 which had been notified for being acquired earlier in point of time from the cut off date, the guidelines provided discount to be made on 1990 price by 15% p.a. As the notification under Section 4 of the Act had been issued 300 days prior to 27.4.1990, the market value was fixed at Rs.84,620/- per bigha.
3. As mentioned above, these appellants sought references under Section 18 of the Act, which were dealt with by the learned ADJs and culminated into the impugned awards. Reference Courts by the impugned awards did away with the categorization of land as was made by the Collector and held that the entire land deserves to be treated equally and determined the market value at Rs.89,620/- per bigha for all categories of land. Instead of making a discount of 15% from the notified rates in letter dated 3.5.1990, the Reference Court, for the land notified prior to 27.4.1990, made a discount @ 7.5 p.a.
4. Still feeling dissatisfied, the claimants have filed these appeals seeking further enhancement in the amount of compensation and their claim is that they be allowed compensation @ Rs.200/- per sq. yards or in other words, Rs.2,00,000/- per bigha.
5. These appeals were earlier heard by a Division Bench of this Court and decided vide judgment dated 7.2.2003. The Division Bench, inter alia, noted that another notification was issued on 31.12.1981 to acquire certain lands in Village Rithala. In respect of that acquisition as well, the matter came to the High Court for assessing the market value for the purpose of awarding compensation to the land owners in those RFA No.677/94 and batch Page 3 cases. The Division Bench of this Court in a common judgment delivered in the said appeals with leading case being RFA No.751/1994 entitled Jas Rath v. Union of India reported as 95 (2002) DLT 605 (DB) had fixed the market value of the land @ Rs.73 per sq. ft. The Court was of the opinion that since land in respect of Village Rithala acquired in that case was in the same vicinity and proximate to each other, it could be treated as par with that of Sahibabad Daultpur as regards its location, advantages and disadvantages. Potential of the acquired land was also same vis-à-vis land utilized for Rohini Residential Scheme being the possible use of lands of both the villages. There were other similarities as well. Therefore, the value of the land fixed in respect of Village Rithala in Jas Rath's case (supra) was made the basis for determination of the market value of the land situate in Village Sahibabad Daulatpur, Delhi, in these appeals. In case of Village Rithala, land was acquired through notification dated 31.12.1981, whereas in the instant cases notification under Section 4 was issued on 23.6.1989.
Thus, there was a time lag of 7½ years. Though in Jas Rath's case (supra) appreciation was allowed @ 12% per annum for the time gap in two notifications, it was deemed proper to allow appreciation @ 10% in the instant case. Making calculations in this manner the market value of the land was fixed at Rs.126 per sq. yd., i.e. Rs.1,26,000/- per bigha. Accordingly, the appellants herein were held entitled to compensation @ Rs.1,26,000/- per bigha in addition to solatium @ 30%, additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Act @ 12% per RFA No.677/94 and batch Page 4 annum from the date of notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act to the date of Collector taking possession or making award by the Collector, whichever is earlier. On the enhanced market value it was directed that interest shall be paid @ 9% per annum for a period of one year from the Collector taking possession and thereafter @ 15% per annum till payment. Interest was also to be paid on solatium and additional amount.
6. The Union of India preferred appeals against the judgment in the case of Jas Rath (supra) in respect of market value determined for the lands situate in Village Rithala. Special Leave Petitions were also preferred against the judgment dated 7.2.2003 passed in these appeals. All these appeals came up for hearing before the Supreme Court with leading case Ranvir Singh and another v. Union of India. These appeals were decided on 7.9.2005 and judgment is reported as 2005 (12) SCC 59. We shall refer to the discussion contained in that judgment at a later stage. Suffice it to mention that the judgment in the case of Jas Rath (supra) as well as in these appeals were set aside by the Apex Court primarily on the ground that for the purpose of determining the market value, sale deeds produced were not taken into consideration. It was pointed out that in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Cement Corporation of India v. Purva & others 2004 (8) SCC 270, the most relevant piece of evidence for determining the market value as on the date of acquisition would be the sale deeds and in particular pertaining to portions of the acquired land. As a RFA No.677/94 and batch Page 5 result, both sets of appeals, namely, in the case of Jas Rath (supra) and in these cases were remanded back by the Supreme Court for reconsideration.
7. Since the appeals in the present case were earlier decided following the judgment in the case of Jas Rath (supra), after remand the Division Bench of this Court thought it proper to first deal with the appeals relating to Village Rithala. Those appeals have already been heard and are decided by this Court and the case is known as Jas Rath v. Union of India , 130 (2006) DLT 700 (DB). The Division Bench has, after a detailed discussion, fixed the market value of the land at Rs.27,000/- per bigha, i.e. Rs.27 per sq.ydt. as against Rs.72/- per sq. yd. granted earlier. The appellants, for obvious reasons, do not want that the compensation given in the aforesaid judgment be made basis for determining the market value in the present case as was done earlier. They submit that the matter be decided on the basis of evidence which was led before the reference court. They also pointed out that against the aforesaid judgment in Jas Rath (supra) appeal are preferred by the land owners which are pending consideration by the Apex Court.
8. On behalf of the appellants arguments were primarily addressed by Mr.Roop Chand and Mr.Deepak Khosla. The contention of the appellants is that few sale deeds relating to Village Sahibabad Daultpur itself were produced before the learned ADJ. In addition, rates fixed by the DDA itself in respect of other land in Rohini complex were also produced before the learned ADJ. However, the learned RFA No.677/94 and batch Page 6 ADJ, while fixing the compensation in the impugned judgment, ignored the said material and instead based his findings on the notification of the Delhi Administration dated 3.5.1990 whereby prices of the acquired land were fixed at Rs.4,65,000/- per acre (Rs.96,875/- per bigha) on or about 27.4.1990. Since this was approximately 308 days after the notification which was issued on 23.6.1989 in the instant cases, he discounted the aforesaid prices by 12.85% (with reference to 15% for 365 days) and arrive at the market value of Rs.84,620/- per bigha as on 23.6.1989. Submission was that the said notification could not be made the sole basis for fixing the market value of the acquired land, ignoring other material and evidence produced by the appellants.
9. In so far as the evidence in the form of sale deeds etc., which was produced by the appellant before the learned ADJ, the same was highlighted in the following manner:-
a) Ex. P-1 is the sale deed dated 3.8.1989. It is in respect of 500 sq. yards of land in the same village as per which, the land is sold @ Rs.172 per sq. yards. It was submitted that the sale deed is within two months of the notification under Section 4 of the Act and therefore, would be the best evidence to establish the market value;
b) Ex. P-3 was the other sale deed dated 22.7.1983 produced by the appellants. As per this sale deed, in RFA No.677/94 and batch Page 7 respect of the land in the same village, the sale consideration was Rs.104/- per sq. ft. It was submitted that since the notification acquiring the land was issued six years after the aforesaid sale deed, if the rates are increased @ 12% per year, compounded annually, the market value as on the date of notification would be Rs.176/- per sq.yd.
c) Another document produced by the appellant was Ex.P-
4, which was sale deed dated 9.6.1990 in respect of land measuring 450 sq. yards of the same village which was sold at Rs.70,000/.- The appellants, however, chose not to rely upon the same. What was submitted was that even if the principle of "golden mean" is adopted while calculating the average price on the basis of Exs. P-1, P-3 and P-4, the market value of the land would be arrived at Rs.258/- per sq. yd.
d) Apart from the aforesaid sale deeds, the learned counsel for the appellants referred to two more documents. Ex.P-5 was the perpetual lease deed executed by DDA on 2.4.1987 in respect of land under Rohini Residential Scheme. This scheme was developed after acquiring the land in Village Sahibabad Daulatpur and other adjoining villages. As per this perpetual lease deed, the land was sold at Rs.445/- per RFA No.677/94 and batch Page 8 sq. ft. It was pointed out that this price was increased to Rs.940/- in the year 1990 and was further increased in the year 1992.
Other document was Ex.P-8, which is notification issued by the DDA, fixing unearned increase for the re- sale of the plots in Rohini Residential Scheme at Rs.4,200/- per sq. meter.
10.It was also submitted that topography of the land in question was described in the judgment pronounced by this Court on earlier occasion, over which there is no dispute. The surrounding area was taken for the development of Rohini Residential Scheme, which was the purpose of acquisition of the land in question and, therefore, future prospects of this land were also to be considered, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Tribeni Devi & Ors. v. The Collector, Ranchi, AIR 1972 SC 1417, which was followed by this Court in Mani Ram Sharma and etc. v. Union of India, AIR 1986 Del 140. Reference was also made to the judgment of the Privy Council in Vyricherla Narayana Gajpati v. Revenue Divisional Officer Vizagpatam, AIR 1939 PC 98 in support of the same proposition.
11.Learned counsel submitted that, no doubt, DDA had entered into the perpetual lease deed after development of the land. For such development prices can be deducted by 1/3rd of the prince fixed by the DDA as per the yardstick laid down by the Supreme Court in the case RFA No.677/94 and batch Page 9 Spl. Tehsildar, Land Acqn., Vishakhapatnam v. Smt. A. Mangala Gowri AIR 1992 SC 666. It was pointed out that in P.S. Krishna and Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. The Land Acquisition Officer (Deputy) (Collector), Hyderabad AIR 1992 SC 421 the development charges were in fact deducted by only 20%. On this basis it was argued that the claim made by the appellants at Rs.200/- per sq. yards was very reasonable.
12.Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, countered the aforesaid submissions. He tried to demolish the very basis of the case set up by the appellants when he contended that the sale deeds Ex.P-2, P-3 or P-4 could not even be looked into. His argument was that, no doubt, these sale deeds were of the same area but they were small pieces of land, namely, 450-500 sq. yards, which was not agriculture land but Lal Dora land in the said village. He queried as to how the appellants could take shelter under these sale deeds as the land falling in Lal Dora had no comparison with the agriculture land inasmuch as, value of Lal Dora land was much higher than that of agriculture land. In so far as Ex.P-5 and P-8 are concerned, his submission was that as per the appellants' own showing, those lands were sold by the DDA after fully developing the said land and creating necessary infrastructure which involved huge expenditure. He argued that the attempt of the appellants to reduce the charges fixed by the DDA by 1/3rd on account of development on the basis of Supreme Court judgment in Spl. Tehsildar, Land Acqn., Vishakhapatnam v. Smt. A. Mangala Gowri (supra) was totally RFA No.677/94 and batch Page 10 misconceived. He, thus, submitted that there was no material worth the name produced by the appellants in the form of sale deed etc. on the basis of market value of the land in question could be fixed.
13.He argued that once the documents produced by the appellants were to be discarded, the material which was available with the Court was in the form of judgments in other cases where land value fixed by this Court had attained finality. These cases on which reliance could be placed according to him were Om Prakash and Ors. v. Union of India, 104 (2003) DLT 1024 (DB). That was a case in respect of land acquired of the same Village Sahibabad Daulatpur vide notification of the year 1983. Following earlier judgment in the case of Balbir Singh v. Union of India, 50 (1993) DLT 40, the Court had fixed the market value at Rs.42,000/- per bigha. His submission was that since the notification with which we are concerned came to be issued five years later, if the value was to be increased @ 12% per annum on compounding basis, the compensation would come to Rs.88,100/- per bigha. Since the learned ADJ in the impugned award had fixed the compensation at Rs.89,620/-, the appellants were not entitled to any further increased, was his submission.
14.He also placed heavy reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Ranvir Singh & Anr. v. Union of India, (2005) 12 SCC 59, and some other judgments, where in the Supreme Court has discussed various principles to be adopted while fixing the compensation for the land acquired by the State. His further submission was that the RFA No.677/94 and batch Page 11 attempt on the part of the appellants to depend on the documents relating to development for claiming compensation against undeveloped land was not permissible.
15.We have considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties appearing on either side with reference to the record. Before we discuss the submissions, it would be apposite to take note of the judgments cited by the lawyers and cull out the principles therefrom, which are to be kept in mind while deciding such a case.
16.We start our discussion with the judgment of the Apex Court in Ranvir Singh (supra). It is for the simple reason that in this judgment the Apex Court has analysed, in depth, the legal position after taking note of number of judgments relevant to the issue. More importantly, this case relates to the acquisition of land for the development of Rohini Residential Scheme itself. The principles which can be culled out from the reading of this judgment are the following :-
(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.
(b) The market value of fully developed land cannot be compared with a wholly undeveloped land even when they are adjoining or situated at a little distance.
RFA No.677/94 and batch Page 12 While laying down this principle, the Court commented upon the incorrect approach adopted 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 right 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 mean 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 v. 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.
RFA No.677/94 and batch Page 13
(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 determining the market value. The Court referred to the earlier judgment in the case of Union of India v. 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 decisions 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 could be sustained."
(f) A judgment or 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 RFA No.677/94 and batch Page 14 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 a perpetual one and the ground rent payable therefor was absolutely nominal being Re.1 per plot per annum for the first five years and thereafter at the rate 2-1/2% of the total amount of premium, which was to be enhanced only after every 30 years, was a 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."
17.In K. Posayya & Ors. v. Special Tahsildar, (1995) 4 SCC 233, the Court restated the principle of law in determining the market value, where vast extent of land is acquired, in the following terms :-
"4. The question, therefore, is, what is the correct principle of law to be applied in determining the market value of vast extent of lands acquired for a project. Admittedly, Ex.A-1 dated 31-12-1980 is the torchlight for the claimants to lay higher claim. It is a post-notification sale of the land situtated in Chakradevarapalli. According to the claimants, it is situated at a distance of 3 to 4 kms from Village Alivelu. According to Land Acquisition Officer, the distance between the two villages is 30 kms. Possession of these lands, admittedly, was taken between 15-4-1977 i.e. prior to the notification under Section 4(1) and 14-7-1980, shortly after the notification under Section 4(1). It would, thus, be clear that the sale deed was brought into existence after the RFA No.677/94 and batch Page 15 notification and possession was taken of the lands. This is the notorious document relied in all the subsequent references. Only the attestor was examined in proof of the documents. It would be obvious that it was a brought-up document to inflate the market value of the lands under acquisition not only in this village but in the surrounding villages. The High Court, therefore, was right in rejecting the said document and refusing to place reliance for determination of the compensation, Exhibit A-2, judgment of the Single Judge of the High Court in AS No. 2500 of 1986 arising out of OP No. 49 of 1984 of the same reference court. The lands therein were acquired for Vengalrayasagar project. They are the wet lands. Since the counsel for the Government did not appear and no material was placed on record and since in earlier cases, award was confirmed for a sum of Rs.22,000 per acre, the Single Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs.22,000. That is obviously an illegal approach adopted by the High Court in determining the market value of project area i.e. large tracts of lands covered by the project. It would appear that the other references were not brought to the notice of the learned Judges. Therefore, it cannot be formed the basis to fix the market value at a higher rate, though the judgment may be wrong."
18.Elsewhere in the same judgment, the Court pointed out that the market value is to be determined either on the basis of the prevailing prices of sale and purchase between willing vendor and willing vendee or value of the crops realized applying suitable 10 years multiplier or in the case of land valued by expert valuer, like urban properties, could be considered for determination of the compensation. The Court remarked that the acid test is the arm chair of the willing vendor would offer and a prudent willing buyer, taking all relevant prevalent conditions of the normal market, fertility of the land, location, suitability of the purpose for which it was purchased, its existing potentialities and likely use to which the land is capable of being put in the same condition would, offer to pay the price, as on the date of the notification. In case of acquisition of large tracts of lands for projects situated in several villages, stray sale deed of small extent here and RFA No.677/94 and batch Page 16 there would not form the basis to determine the compensation. The reference court should be circumspect, pragmatic and careful in analyzing the evidence and arriving at just and fair market value of the lands under acquisition which could be fetched on the date of the notification.
19.In Land Acquisition Officer, Kammarapally Village, Nizamabad District, A.P. v. Nookala Rajamallu & Ors., 2003 (12) SCC 334, where the agricultural land was acquired and sale deed in respect of Lal Dora land was produced in evidence to show the market value, the Court opined that while comparing the developed land with agricultural land, deduction @ 53% of the sale price should be made, which is clear from the following observations :-
"11. The evidence on record shows that the acquired lands were agricultural lands. Obviously, their valuation would differ to a considerable extent from the land used for house sites. In such a case, necessary deductions for the extent of land acquired for the formation of roads and other civic amenities, expenses of development of the sites by laying on roads, drains, sewers, water and electricity lines and the interest on the outlays for the period of deferment of the realization of the price, the profits on the venture, etc. are to be made. (See Administrator General of W.B. v. Collector, Varanasi, (1988) 2 SCC 150). In Brig. Sahib Singh Kalha v. Amritsar Improvement Trust, (1982) 1 SCC 419 the deduction for such development was taken as 53%.
12. In K.S. Shivadevamma v. Asstt. Commr. and Land Acquisition Officer, (1996) 2 SCC 62 this Court held as follows: (SCC p.65, para 10) "10. It is then contended that 53% is not automatic but depends upon the nature of the development and the stage of development. We are inclined to agree with the learned counsel that the extent of deduction depends upon development need in each case. Under the Building Rules 53% of land is required to be left RFA No.677/94 and batch Page 17 out. This Court has laid as a general rule that for laying the roads and other amenities 33 1/3% is required to be deducted. Where the development has already taken place, appropriate deduction needs to be made. In this case, we do not find any development had taken place as on that date. When we are determining compensation under Section 23(1), as on the date of notification under Section 4(1), we have to consider the situation of the land development if already made, and other relevant facts as on that date. No doubt, the land possessed potential value, but no development had taken place as on the date. In view of the obligation on the part of the owner to hand over the land to the City Improvement Trust for roads and for other amenities and his requirement to expend money for laying the roads, water supply mains, electricity, etc. the deduction of 53% and further deduction towards development charges @ 33 1/3%, as ordered by the High Court, was not illegal."
13. On applying the principles of law as set out in various decisions referred to above to the facts of the case, we feel that deduction at the rate of 53% from the value indicated in Ext. B/4 would bring the rate per square yard to be around Rs.40. The rate is accordingly fixed. The claimants shall be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.40 per sq yard along with statutory entitlements including interest on solatium. The appeals are allowed to be aforesaid extent. Costs made easy."
20.In Raj Devi & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., 145 (2007) DLT 438 (DB), this Court adopted the same principle and held that market value of a fully developed land cannot be compared with a wholly undeveloped land although they may be adjoining or situated at a little distance, following Ranvir Singh (supra).
21.When we examine the sale deeds and other documents produced by the appellants with reference to the aforesaid principles, it is difficult to act thereupon. Ex.P-1 is a sale deed in respect of 500 sq.yds. of land. Not only it is a sale deed in respect of a small piece of land, the land in question admittedly was in lal dora, i.e. abadi area, in contrast to the RFA No.677/94 and batch Page 18 acquired land which is agricultural. Furthermore, the sale deed is dated 3.8.1989, which is within two months from the date of Section 4 notification that was issued on 23.6.1989. The Court has to be circumspect in acting upon such a sale deed which is described as "notorious document" by the Supreme Court in K. Posayya (supra).
22.Exhibit P-3, though is a sale deed of 1983, is again of a small piece of land that, that too in lal dora, which was not only an abadi land but developed as well. As per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ranvir Singh (supra), followed recently by this Court in Raj Devi (supra), it is difficult to place reliance thereupon.
In view of this, judgments cited by the appellants and referred to in para 10 above may not be of any help to the appellants. On the basis of those judgments, learned counsel for the appellants have sought to contend that the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deeds be deducted by 33%. We may only point out as against that in the case of Nookala Rajamallu (supra) decided in 2003, the Supreme Court opined that while comparing the developed land with agricultural land, deduction @ 53% of the sale price should be made. In any case, as discussed hereinafter, since we have more reliable evidence to act upon, it is not necessary to dwell into this issue any further.
23.While on the one hand we have the shaky evidence in the form of aforesaid sale deeds of small pieces of land, that too in lal dora which RFA No.677/94 and batch Page 19 is not comparable with agricultural land, on the other hand we also have the judgment of this Court finally determining the market value of the land in the same vicinity acquired for same purpose, namely, Rohini Residential Scheme. As pointed out by Mr. Sanjay Poddar, in the case of Balbir Singh (supra), this Court had fixed the market value at Rs.50,000/- per bigha. That was a land acquired in Village Samepur in respect of which notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 27.7.1984. Acquisition was of a larger track of land. Fixation of this market value was made basis for determining the market value of the acquisition of land within revenue assets of some other villages, including Samepur and Shahbad Daulatpur. We are here concerned with the land of village Shahbad Daulatpur. Those lands were acquired one year prior to the notification, subject matter of Balbir Singh. Taking the market value of Rs.50,000/-, as determined in Balbir Singh, deduction @ 12% p.a. was made for the period between 24.7.1984 to 26.3.1983 and in this manner the market value of the land was fixed at Rs.42,000/- per bigha. These judgments would furnish piece of evidence which is more reliable and comparable in contrast with the evidence produced by the appellants as against the sale deeds of lal dora, that too of small pieces of land.
24.We have in the form of the aforesaid judgments, the determination of market value of the revenue assets in the same village Shahbad Daulatpur; both agricultural lands and both acquisitions of vast areas in close proximity with each other. Therefore, we find that it would be RFA No.677/94 and batch Page 20 more appropriate to make Om Prakash (supra) as the basis for determining the market value in the instant case as well. We may note that when the land was acquired in the year 1983 for the same purpose, i.e. Rohini Residential Scheme, the Court there had taken into consideration the factor that it was in close proximity of developed or developing areas, as is clear from the following remarks :-
"4. Before proceeding further and discussing evidence, it will be necessary to note down the topography of the acquired land, which was acquired for public purpose i.e. Engineering College. The acquired land of the four revenue estates was located towards the North of Delhi Bhawana Auchandi Road, which in turn connects Narela Industrial Town. From Badli Railway Station the acquired land was located at a distance of 1 km. Western Jamuna Canal runs towards North East side of the acquired land. Rohini Residential Colony is located towards South of the acquired land to the other side of Delhi Bhawana Auchandi Road. Obviously, the entire acquired land was to be utilized and has in fact been utilized for the purpose of Engineering College. Though situate in four different revenue estates it formed a compact block of land, which led to the Reference Court proceeding to determine almost similar market value except for small portions, which were found to be adjacent to the road or were categorized in Block B because of the classification made in the revenue records."
25.The Court had also taken into consideration the future potential value of the said land, as is clear from the following discussion :-
"11. When vast area is being acquired in close proximity of development or developing area, it may not be appropriate to maintain the classification as per the revenue records nor it is reasonable to resort to belting method. In order to meet the submission made by learned Counsel for the respondent, with reference to the land use that it had to be evaluated as agricultural land and not possessing potentiality for being used for raising construction, reference may be made to the decision of Supreme Court in Municipal Committee, Bhatinda and Others v. Balwant Singh and Others, 1995 (4) SCC 433. In the said case as on the date of notification lands were agricultural lands. Sanction of plans for building purposes had not been obtained by owners. The question considered was that whether the lands were capable of RFA No.677/94 and batch Page 21 being considered having potential value of being put to residential, commercial or industrial uses. Supreme Court held that though the lands were agricultural lands, but they were situated nearer to the built up areas within municipal limits and thus were having potential value for residential or commercial purposes. Thus the submission of learned Counsel for the respondent has no force."
26.Thus, after taking into consideration all the aspects, which are also pressed by the appellants herein, this Court had fixed the market value of the land as on 26.3.1983 at Rs.42,000/- per bigha. Though this may not be a conclusive evidence, having regard to the fact that there is no other evidence produced by the appellant which can be of better evidential value or more reliable, the aforesaid evidence is most suited for the purpose of fixing the market value in the instant case.
27.As noted above, Notification under Section 4 of the Act in the case of Om Prakash (supra) is of 26.3.1983. In the present case, Notification is dated 23.6.1989. Applying the principle of appreciation in the value @ 12% on compounding basis, the market value as on 23.6.1989 would come to Rs.88,100/- per bigha. However, we find that the learned ADJ has already awarded compensation @ Rs.89,620/- per bigha. Therefore, no case for further enhancement is made out.
28.We, accordingly, dismiss these appeals. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
(A.K. SIKRI)
JUDGE
September 30, 2008 (MANMOHAN SINGH)
hp/nsk JUDGE
RFA No.677/94 and batch Page 22