Delhi District Court
Smt. Omwati vs Union Of India Through on 22 July, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV KUMAR:
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE : ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
LAC No. 159A/09
UID No. 02404C0073272009
IN RE :
1. SMT. OMWATI
W/O SH. PARTAP SINGH
2. SMT. PUSHPA DEVI
W/O SH. CHHANGA RAM
BOTH R/O VILLAGE. BHORGARH,
DELHI
...... PETITIONERS
Versus
1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR,
NORTH WEST,
DELHI.
2. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
VIKAS SADAN, DELHI.
........RESPONDENTS
Award No. 20/200304
Village RAJAPUR KALAN
Date of Award/ Date of
Announcement of Award 25.11.2003
Notification U/S 4 (1) F.10(4)/97/L&B/LA/7329
dt.22.08.2001
Corrigendum F.10(4)/97/L&B/LA/5148
dt.26.06.2002
LAC No. 159A/09 Page 1 of 35
Notification U/s 6 F.10(4)/97/L&B/LA/7919
dt.26.07.2002
Date of Receipt of Reference : 30.07.2005
Date of Arguments : 12.07.2010
Date of Decision : 22.07.2010
REFERENCE PETITION UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE
LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894
J U D G M E N T
1. The present reference u/s 18 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as LA Act), has been filed by the petitioners seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred as LAC) with respect to the 1/3rd share in land bearing khasra no.514(0416), 631 min(01
16) 632(0312), 633(0416), 634(0416), 637(005), 641(0416), 642(416) total measuring 29 bigha 13 biswas, situated in the revenue estate of village Rajabpur Kalan, Delhi, which was acquired vide notification no. F.10(4)/97/L&B/LA/7329 dt.22.08.2001 issued u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as LA Act. LAC passed the award no. 20/2003
04.
2. Brief facts of the case are that LAC has acquired a large tract of land and he has awarded compensation of the land Rs.15,70,000/ (Rupees Fifteen Lac Seventy Thousand) per acre for land falling in LAC No. 159A/09 Page 2 of 35 Block 'A', Rs.14,00,000/ (Rupees Fourteen Lac) per acre for land falling in 'B' Block and Rs.12,30,000/ (Rupees Twelve Lac Thirty Thousand) per acre for land falling in 'C' Block.
3. Being aggrieved with the compensation of the land, petitioners have challenged the award on the following grounds :
a) that LAC has not adopted the correct method of assessment and same is based on government policy issued by the government of NCT vide its order dated 09.08.2001, whereby indicative price for the agricultural land determined at the rate of Rs.15,70,000/ made effective from 01.04.2001.
Market value of the acquired land cannot be determined on the basis of Govt. Policy but it should have been determined as per provisions of section 23 and 24 of the LA Act, 1894;
b) that LAC has failed to consider that the land of the petitioners was acquired for Development of Freight Complex in Narela under Planned Development of Delhi and development has already been taken place in and around the land of the petitioners which LAC should have taken into consideration while determine the market value;
c) that LAC has failed to consider the sale deed of land bearing khasra no. 47/9 measuring 4 bigha 16 biswas for a sum of Rs.26,75,000/, pertaining to the revenue estate of village Mamurpur which is adjoining to the revenue estate of village Rajapur Kalan ;
LAC No. 159A/09 Page 3 of 35
d) that LAC has failed to consider that the land of the petitioners are adjacent to various developed industrial areas and village abadi and has all the amenities like developed metalled roads, electricity, hospitals, Govt. Schools, public schools, computer institutes, full fledged post office, health gym, and most frequently service by DTC and various other private transporters etc. and further it was connected to the NH1;
e) that land of the petitioners is situated at very good location that land of village as it was connected with two National Highway i.e. NH1 (GT Karnal Road) and NH10 (Delhi Ferozpur Road) and also Delhi Jammu Railway Line passes through the village Rajapur Kalan which increase the future potentiality of the land of the petitioners.
f) that LAC has failed to consider that land of the petitioners that land of the petitioner is very fertile and well irrigated of the sweet water of West Yamuma Canal due to which petitioners were producing 3 crops in a year;
g) that LAC has failed to consider that many palatial farm houses have been constructed in the revenue estate of village Rajapur and the adjoining village of Holambi Kalan and Bhorgarh etc. and cost of such farm houses would not less than Rs.15,000/per sq. yards.
h) that LAC has failed to consider that land of the petitioners has not been severed from his other land due to which he LAC No. 159A/09 Page 4 of 35 suffered a substantial loss and he should have been given damage of Rs.1 lac;
i) that LAC has failed to consider that earlier DSIDC has sold the land at the rate of Rs.8,000/ per sq. yards while dividing it into plots. Hence, same rate should have been awarded to the petitioner
j) that land of the petitioners has number of trees of Shisham, Shahtoot and Neem and LAC has not awarded the compensation of the said trees and he has claimed Rs.20000/ for trees ;
k) that LAC has failed to consider that petitioners were deprived of use of his land due to demarcation by the respondent, thus he suffered a loss of Rs.10000/ per bigha for the crops;
l) that LAC has not awarded compensation for the tubewell and the pucca room, which was constructed for the said tube well and other ancillary agricultural purposes;
m) that LAC has also grossly erred in not awarding the compensation for the expenses, loss and injury sustained due to competed change of nature and place of business/livelihood.
n) that LAC has grossly erred in not considering increase of 15% per annum and between the date of notification u/s 4(1) of the LA Act and the date of taking possession; LAC No. 159A/09 Page 5 of 35
4. 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") by filling WS. In the WS it is stated on behalf of UOI that land of the petitioner was not surrounded by developed and under developed colonies and can be used only for agricultural purpose. Further it is denied that there was any structure, well or tube well on the land in question. Thus compensation awarded by the LAC is just and adequate and petitioner is not entitle to any enhancement in compensation.
5. In the Written Statement of DDA it is stated that LAC has taken into consideration all the sale deed and other documents placed on record while passing the award and he has awarded the just and adequate compensation to the petitioner. Further it is denied that petitioner has suffered any loss due to severance of his left over land. It is also denied by the DDA that there exist any trees, well/ tube well or there was any pucca room in the acquired land. Further DDA has also denied that petitioner is entitle to compensation at the rate of Rs.5000/ per sq. yards.
6. During the admissiondenial of documents, petitioners have admitted statement u/s 19 of Land Acquisition Act sent by LAC. As per statement u/s 19 land of the petitioner was of category 'A' land.
LAC No. 159A/09 Page 6 of 35
7. 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.
8. In support of his claim, the petitioners have led their evidence through attorney Sh. Har pal @ Hari Pal and examined 6 witnesses. PW1 Sister Jwala, Secretary of Society of Sisters of Destitute Jivodaya Hospital. She has proved the sale deed dated 25.04.01 of Village Khera Khurd as Ex.PW1/1, which was executed by Society Franciscan Brothers Khera Khurd.
PW2 is Sandeep Sood, Attorney of Sh. GPS Bhalla, Joint Secretary of Radha Soami Satsang Beas, has proved the authority letter as Ex. PW2/X. He has also proved two sale deeds as Ex. PW2/1 and Ex.PW2/2.
PW3 Satyapal Singh, Executive Engineer, DSIDC, who has proved the layout plan of Narela Industrial Complex as Ex. PW3/1. He has also proved the statement of expenditure including committed liability on development of Narela Industrial complex by DSIDC as Ex. PW3/2.
LAC No. 159A/09 Page 7 of 35 PW4 Sh. Sanjay Kumar, AGIII, DSIDC has proved the perpetual lease deed dated 26.06.06 as Ex.PW4/1 and perpetual lease deed dated 28.11.06 as Ex.PW4/2.
PW5 M.D. Sharma, Halka Patwari, village Bhorgarh has produced Aks Shijra as Ex. PW5/1, jamabandi for the year 200001. PW6 Har Pal @ Hai Pal, who was the attorney of petitioner no. 1 Smt. Omwati has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit (no exhibit given) and proved his power of attorney as Ex. PW6/A. He has also proved the award no. 5/7980 of village Bhorgarh as Ex.PW6/1 and award no.58/8081 of village Bhorgarh as Ex.PW6/2. He has proved the certified copy of judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court in RFA No.751/94 dated 04.09.2001 as Ex. PW6/3 and certified copy of judgment passed in case LAC No.7/98 titled as Argun Kumar Gupta Vs. UOI by Ms.Reva Khetrapal, Ld. ADJ dated 29.07.1999 as Ex. PW6/4.
9. On the other hand respondents did not lead any evidence and only tendered the copy of the award through their counsel as Ex. R1 and sale deed Mark A which was executed on 20th May 2002 and also relied upon the evidence led by counsel for UOI in case LAC No. 669A/08.
10. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have also LAC No. 159A/09 Page 8 of 35 carefully considered the record. My issuewise findings are given hereinafter.
FINDINGS ON ISSUE NO. 1 :
11. 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. 11.1 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 LAC No. 159A/09 Page 9 of 35 09.08.2001 which was 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. As he has observed that interested parties have generally claims exorbitant prices of their land by making claim about Rs.533 sq. yards to Rs.10,000/ per sq. yards. They have however, not filed any documentary evidence in support of their claim.
"In a policy announcement which came into effect from the financial year 200102, 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 contrary and in light of the above discussion, I find Rs.15,70,000/ per acre to be the most reasonable price for the agricultural land as on 22.08.2001. 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/."
Petitioner's counsel has contended that LAC has not adopted LAC No. 159A/09 Page 10 of 35 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. Agricultural yield method and Net Income method
12. One of the method to determine market value is income generated from land. Petitioner has not led any evidence to prove that what was the income from the agricultural land. In view of the above, I hold that petitioner has failed to prove his claim for enhancement of market value on the basis of agricultural yield.
13. Location, Potentiality, Surrounding and Comparable sales 13.1 Ld. Counsel for the petitioners, has contended that petitioners have proved that acquired land has great potentiality which LAC has failed to appreciate. He has contended that petitioner has proved that land of the village Rajapur Kalan & surrounding land of adjoining village like village Bhorgarh, Mamurpur, Holambi Kalan. Kherakhurd, Tikri Khurd, Narela, etc. acquired through various awards and on the acquired land DDA has developed Narela Residential area and DSIDC has developed Narela Industrial Park due to which potentiality of the land of the petitioner had increased manifold as his land was adjacent to acquired LAC No. 159A/09 Page 11 of 35 land, therefore, his land deserve a very high market price. To prove this he has relied upon the testimony of PW5 Sh. M.P. Sharma, Halka Patwari, who has deposed that on the eastern side of village Rajapur Kalan is village Bhorgarh. The said eastern side is developed by DSIDC and is also owned by DSIDC vide khewat no. 37/45 khata no. 67 of Jamabandi Ex.PW5/2 for the year 200001. He has further proved the Aks Sizra of village Bhorgarh and village Rajapurkalan as Ex. PW5/1 and he has stated that area at mark E,F, G & H in Ex.PW5/1 was acquired vide award no. 20/200304 in village Rajapurkalan and the land comprising in khasra no. 632, 633, 634, 641, 642, 631 min, 637 has been acquired vide the award.
13.2 Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that since his land is adjacent to the Narela Residential Area and Narela Industrial Complex, which is developed on the land of above mentioned village, 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. As the DDA and DSIDC have sold the plot in Narela Residential Area & Narela Industrial Complex. To prove this Ld. Counsel has relied upon perpetual lease dated 26.06.06 in respect of the plot no. 2676, Block /Pocket no. B, layout plan of Narela LAC No. 159A/09 Page 12 of 35 Industrial Park ad measuring 150 sq. meter in favour of M/s Deep Plastic for a sum of Rs. 6,30,000/ as Ex. PW4/1 and perpetual lease deed dated 28.11.06 in respect of plot no. 1834 block /pocket no. F situated in the layout plan of Narela ad measuring 253.125 Sq. yards in favour of M/s Parveen Oil and Shops Industries for a sum of Rs.1063125/ as Ex.PW4/2. Ld. Counsel has argued that both these plots have been sold @ Rs.4,200/. Therefore, LAC should have determine the market rate by taking into consideration these rates fixed by DSIDC after making appropriate deduction on development of plots.
13.3 Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that DSIDC has made huge profits by selling the land at much higher rate after taking the land from farmers at much cheaper rate. Ld. Counsel has tried to demonstrate it while relied upon testimony of PW3 Satyapal Singh who has produced the details of total expenditure committed on development of Narela Industrial Complex. The total cost of development project is Rs.181.71 crores. Cost of development per sq. meter is Rs.1772.02/. Cost of plots alloted in the year 2006 is at the rate of Rs.4,200/ per sq. meter meaning thereby DSIDC has earned profit of Rs.2418 sq. meter or Rs.2,03,802.30/ per bigha.
LAC No. 159A/09 Page 13 of 35 13.4 Thus it is evident that DSIDC had sold their land at much higher rates and earned profit of around 20 lac per bigha after taking the land at cheaper rate from land owner. Hence, under such circumstances petitioner should be paid atleast Rs.50 lac per acre.
13.5 On the other hand Ld. Counsel for the respondent has argued that land of the petitioner was totally agricultural land and the same cannot be used for any other purpose except agriculture, hence, petitioner cannot be awarded the rate at which DDA and DSIDC has been allotting land to various plot holders. In support of this contention he has relied upon the judgment Lal Chand Vs. UOI VII (2009), SLT 439 and Ranvir Singh Vs. UOI 123 (2005) DLT 252 (SC). 13.6 I have considered the arguments and gone through the evidence. From the evidence produced by petitioner it is proved that acquired land is not very far away from the Industrial area of Narela and Narela residential colony developed by DSIDC. This is also not in dispute that DSIDC had allotted plots in the area developed by them at much higher rates. But question is that can the rates of plots allotted by DSIDC is relevant for the purpose of determining the rate of underdeveloped agricultural land? Can the same LAC No. 159A/09 Page 14 of 35 rate be given to undeveloped agricultural land? I am agree with the contention of Ld. Counsel for the UOI, that there can be no comparison between the land rate of a developed colony or industrial area with undeveloped agricultural land, as to develop a residential colony or industrial area, a huge money has to be spent for building, road, school, hospital, park and other amenities and it take years for Development Authority to develop the same after which plot become ready for allotment. Further a large area is required to be left for these development activities. Hence cost of this left over area is also included in the rates of plots sold by DSIDC. In such circumstance, it would not be proper to rely upon the rates of plots sold by DSIDC. In a recent judgment Lal Chand Vs. UOI (Supra) Hon'ble Justice Ravindran 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 Urban area. Secondly, DDA and other statutory authorities adopt different rates for plots in the same area LAC No. 159A/09 Page 15 of 35 with reference to the economic capacity of the buyer, making it difficult to ascertain the real market value, whereas market value determination for acquisition is uniform and does not depend upon the economic status of the land 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 LAC No. 159A/09 Page 16 of 35 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 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 semideveloped 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 LAC No. 159A/09 Page 17 of 35 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 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, LAC No. 159A/09 Page 18 of 35 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."
13.7 Similar view was earlier adopted by Hon'ble Judges of Delhi High Court in 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 LAC No. 159A/09 Page 19 of 35 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.
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 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, LAC No. 159A/09 Page 20 of 35 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).
LAC No. 159A/09 Page 21 of 35
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 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 judges 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 LAC No. 159A/09 Page 22 of 35 value of a vast stretch of land. As it 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 A1 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 A1, 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 LAC No. 159A/09 Page 23 of 35 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 land 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 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 LAC No. 159A/09 Page 24 of 35 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."
13.8 Hence, in the light of above said judgment, I held that land rate, which was fixed by DDA or DSIDC for allotting plot cannot be given to petitioner for his underdeveloped agricultural land.
14. What should be the test of determining the market rate of land. In Union of India Vs.Parmod Gupta 2005 (4) RCR (Civil)235:
[(2005) 12 SCC 1], on the question of market value Hon'ble Supreme Court Judges has observed that:
"24. while determining the amount of compensation payable in respect of the lands acquired by the State, market value, indisputably has to be ascertained. There exist different needs therefore.
LAC No. 159A/09 Page 25 of 35
25. The best method, as is well known, would be the amount which a willing purchaser would pay to the owner of the land. In absence of any direct evidence, the court, however, may take recourse to various other known methods. Evidences admissible therefore, interalia would be judgments and award passed in respect of acquisitions of lands made in the same village and /or neighbouring villages. Such a judgment and award in the absence of any other evidence like the sale deed, report of the expert and other relevant evidence would have evidential value. 14.1 In Special Deputy Collector & Another Vs. Karra Sambasine Rao & Others AIR 1997 SC 2625 Supreme Court held that:
"the acid test would be whether a hypothetical willing vendor would offer the land and a willing purchaser in normal human condition would be willing to buy as a prudent man in normal conditions prevailing in the open market in the locality in which the acquired lands are situated as on the date of the notification under section 4 (1) of the Act. In Jasrath Vs. UOI RFA No. 751/94 dated 27.04.06 the Division Bench of the High Court held that "The instances of sale deed in relation of the land LAC No. 159A/09 Page 26 of 35 subject to acquisition are the most relevant piece of evidence for assessing the market value of the land. The award/judgment of the court in relation to acquired land as well as surrounding land are again relevant piece of evidence. Once there two material evidence are available on record, it is not necessary for the court to go beyond his evidence to determine the market value.
14.2 Now reverting back to the present case, petitioner has relied upon sale deeds in support of his claim for enhancement of market value. The sale deed Ex. PW2/1 is pertained to 2 bigha 19 biswas situated in the village Khera Khurd executed on 25.04.2001 between the Society Franciscan brother, Khera Khurd and the Society of Ssister of Destitute, Jivodaya Hospital for a sum of Rs.Thirty Two Lac Forty Thousand only while Sale deed Ex.PW2/2 pertained to a land of 4 bigha 6 biswas situated in revenue estate of village Mamurpur executed on 25.03.2000 between seller Suraj Bhan etc. in favour of Radha Swami Satsang for a sum of Rs.26,75,000/.
14.3 Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that though these sale deeds are not of same village, but they are of adjacent village, which are at a distance of just few acre from the land LAC No. 159A/09 Page 27 of 35 of petitioner and court can rely upon the sale deed of adjoining village while determining the market value. He has argued that with respect to sale deed of village Mamurpur market value comes around Rs.28,89,000/ per acre after adding the amount of stamp duty. Whereas with regard to the sale deeds of Khera Khurd it would be more than Rs.56,00,000/. Ld. Counsel has further argued that this Court can determine the market value by deducting appropriate percentage of petitioner's land as cost development of land and even if 50% deduction is made, cost of land of petitioner would not be less than Rs.25 lacs per acre. Thus petitioner is entitled to at least this much enhancement in market value.
14.4 On the other hand Ld. Counsel for the respondents relied upon sale deed Mark 'A' which is sale deed of 10 bigha 13 biswa situated in khasra no. 200 situated in the revenue estate of village of Rajapur Kalan itself. Ld. Counsel has argued that when the sale deed of same village is available then the sale deed of adjoining village cannot be looked upon. He has relied upon the judgment titled as 'Kanwar Singh Vs. UOI' (1998) 8 SCC 136 where in Supreme Court has held that :
"generally there would be different situation and potentiality LAC No. 159A/09 Page 28 of 35 of land situated in the different village unless it is proved that the situation and potentiality of land in two different villages are same".
14.5 I have perused the sale deeds relied upon by both the parties.
These are the same sale deeds which were also relied upon in Zile Singh Vs. UOI, LAC No. 669A/08 wherein I have discussed in detail about these sale deeds and observed in para 13.5:
"13.5 I have perused the sale deeds relied upon by both the parties. The land of village Mamurpur, has been purchased by Radha Swami Satsang, which is prima facie a religious Trust. Therefore, purpose of purchasing land definitely is not agricultural purpose as they are not going to cultivate the land, rather the land have been purchased for religious purpose as it was admitted by the PW2 Suraj Bhan in his cross examination that "as per his knowledge land is being used for religious purpose".
Thus it is apparent that consideration for purchasing the land was different, land was purchased for religious purpose and for which they require main road land & since Radha Swami Satsang is a big religious trust having dearth of money can pay any of the amount. Further since land is situated on the road side, witness Suraj Bhan who has sold the land has admitted in the cross examination done ( in another case) has told that his land was situated on prime location. Hence, I am of the view this sale deed do not reflect the true market value. Even otherwise no evidence has led by the petitioner to prove that land sold in sale deed Ex. PW1/3 have same nature, potentiality then that of petitioner's land.
LAC No. 159A/09 Page 29 of 35 13.6 With regard to sale transaction of village Khera Khurd relied upon by petitioner, as this is a sale between two nongovernment Cristian Organisation and definitely same is not for agricultural purpose, as appeared from the statement of sister Sr. Annie SD Secretary of the buyer, PW3. She has admitted in the cross examination that "we had to pay the premium price for the said piece of land as that was the only plot of the size which was suited for our requirement. The said land is being used for destitute abandon women and part of the land for agriculture purpose ....... 18 to 20 women are occupying the area constructed upon the land in question".
Thus, it is proved beyond doubt that land under sale deed relied upon by petitioner is not being used for agricultural purpose and being used for residential purpose, whereas petitioner's land as per his own admission is purely agriculture land and legally an agricultural land cannot be used for nonagricultural purpose without permission. Further land under sale deed relied upon by petitioner is admittedly situated at better location. Thus land under the sale deed relied upon by petitioner cannot be compared with the acquired land to determine market value as same is not agricultural land. As it was held in Lal Chand Vs. UOI (supra) "Mere production of some exemplar deeds without 'connecting' the subject matter of the instrument, to the acquired lands will be of little assistance in determining the market value. Section 51A of the LA Act only exempts the production of the original sale deed and examination of the vendor or vendee."
Hence, in my view sale deed relied upon by petitioner cannot be basis for determining market value.
LAC No. 159A/09 Page 30 of 35 13.7 On the other hand sale deed R2 relied upon by the respondents pertained to land measuring 1 bigha 13 biswa which is also part of khasra no. 200(113) situated in the revenue estate of Village Razapur Kalan itself, which was purchased for a sum of Rs.5,39,690/ executed on 20th May 2002. Thus the said sale deed is of almost 10 month after the notification u/s 4 of this case. Hence, same can not be looked upon. 13.8 In view of the above, I held that petitioner has failed to prove that he is entitle for enhancement of compensation on the basis of sale transaction."
15. Similar is the position in the present case therefore, I held that the sale deed relied upon by the petitioner is not relevant piece of evidence to determine the market value of village Rajapur Kalan, hence, I held that petitioner is not entitle to any enhancement on the basis of sale transactions.
16. Another contention put forth by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner is that LAC has determined the market value in the present award on the basis of govt. policy dated 09.08.2001 whereby govt. had fixed minimum rate of agriculture land @ Rs.15,70,000/ which was made effective from 01.04.2001, where as notification u/s 4 was issued on 22.08.2001 but the LAC has not granted any compensation for the price rise for the intervening period 01.04.2001 to 22.08.2001. Ld. Counsel has contended that considering the potentiality of petitioner's land he should be given 15 % increase for the intervening period.
LAC No. 159A/09 Page 31 of 35 16.1 On the other hand Ld. Counsel for the respondent has contended that since Rs.15,70,000/ is determined by the LAC is fair & just compensation and since petitioner has failed to lead any evidence to show that there was increase in the rate between intervening period, hence, he is not entitle to any enhancement.
16.2 On going through the award, in para 2nd of page 22 LAC has mentioned that "In a policy announcement which came into effect from the financial year 20012002, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi fixed the indicative prices of agricultural land @ Rs.15,70,000.00 per acre for the acquisition of agricultural land vide their order No. F.9(20)/80/L&B/LA6696 dated 09.08.2001 which are applicable with effect from 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. Hence, in view of the above facts I find Rs.15,70,000.00 per acre to be the most reasonable price for the agricultural land as on 22.08.2001. I accordingly, determine the market value of the agricultural land @ Rs.15,70,000.00 per acre." LAC No. 159A/09 Page 32 of 35 Thus from the perusal of award it is apparent that minimum rates of agricultural land made applicable from 01.04.2001, whereas in case notification u/s 4 was issued on 22.08.2001. I found force in the contention of Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that atleast petitioner is entitle to escalation for the intervening period i.e. from the date when the Government policy become effective till the date of notification u/s 4 of the LA Act i.e. 01.04.2001 to 22.08.2001. There are numerous judgment which fortify my this view, in Mahinder Singh Vs. UOI Hon'ble High Court has awarded 11.5% compound interest for the intervening period between two notification where as in recently in Partap Singh Vs. UOI LA Appeal no. 780/2008 dated 19.12.2008 Hon'ble High Court has granted 12% increase for the intervening period between two sale deed since gap was about 10 months approx. Similarly in Bedi Ram & Ors. Vs. UOI and Ors. 93(2001) DLT 150, 12% increase has been given by the High Court. Recently in Special Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Kargowda (Supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court held that 10% to 15% increase for the intervening period between two sale deed would be appropriate. Considering all these judgment I am of the view that it would be justified to give increase @ 12% for the intervening period between the date of government policy & notification u/s 4 of LA Act (i.e. 01.04.2001 to 22.08.2001 = 143 days) it comes to Rs.16,43,811/ per acre. Thus petitioner LAC No. 159A/09 Page 33 of 35 get an enhancement of Rs.73,811 per acre.
17. Besides above, petitioners shall be entitled to other statutory benefit i.e 12% Addl. Amount as per section 23 (1) A & 30% solatium u/s 23 (2) & will be entitle to interest on the market value @ 9% per annum for the first year & 15% for subsequent year till the making of payment of enhanced compensation by LAC as per provision of Section 28 of the Act.
Issue no. 1 decided accordingly.
18. Findings on Issue No.2 - RELIEF 18.1 In view of the findings on Issue no.1, the petitioners are entitled to the following reliefs:
a) enhancement in market value of petitioner's land from Rs.15,70,000 per acre to Rs.16,43,811 per acre, thus giving enhancement @ Rs.73,811/ per acre for the land as per statement u/s 19 LA Act ;
b) additional amount u/s 23 (1A) @ 12% p.a., on the market value from the date of notification u/s 4 of the LA Act till the date of award or dispossession, whichever is earlier ;
c) solatium u/s 23(2) of LA Act @ 30% on the enhanced amount of compensation ;
d) interest under Section 28 of L.A 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 LAC No. 159A/09 Page 34 of 35 compensation awarded by the LAC for the subsequent period till its payment ;
19. Reference is disposed of accordingly.
20. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. A copy of the judgment be sent to LAC for necessary action.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (SANJEEV KUMAR) today on 22.07.2010 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE:
DELHI LAC No. 159A/09 Page 35 of 35