Delhi District Court
: 1 Of 38 : Lac 365 A/06 / Ajeet Singh vs . Uoi on 15 March, 2008
: 1 of 38 : LAC 365 A/06 / Ajeet Singh Vs. UOI
THE COURT OF SHRI SANJAY KUMAR,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (LAC),
ROOM NO. 230, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
LAC No. 365-A/2006
Village : Dhool Siras
Award No. : 27/2002-03
Date of Notification U/s 4 : 13-12-2000
1. Shri Ajeet Singh,
S/o late Shri Deep Chand
2. Shri Anil Kumar,
S/o Shri Krishan Chand
Both resident of Village Dhoolsiras, Delhi
.........Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Through Land Acquisition Collector
District South West,
Kapashera, New Delhi.
2. Delhi Development Authority,
Through its Vice Chairman,
Vikas Sadan, INA Market,
New Delhi.
..........Respondents
Date of Institution : 19-04-2006
Judgment reserved on : 10-03-2008
Judgment delivered on : 15-03-2008
JUDGMENT:
1. The Government of NCT of Delhi acquired total land of 3133 Bigha 17 Biswa which was notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 vide Notification no. F.10(30)/96/L&B/LA/13417 : 2 of 38 : LAC 365 A/06 / Ajeet Singh Vs. UOI dated 13.12.2000 also under Section 6 vide notification no. F.10(30)/ 96/L&B/LA/14062 dated 07.12.2001. The land was also notified under Section 17(1) vide notification no. F.10(30)/96/L&B/LA/19798-811 dated 15.03.2002. The land is required to be taken by the Government at the public expenses for a public purpose namely "Dwarka Phase II", Delhi for Planned Development of Delhi.
2. The Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as "the Collector") passed the Award no. 27/2002-2003 dated 24.10.2002 u/s 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The Collector determined the market value of the land under acquisition @ Rs. 13.82 lacs per acre in Block A and @ Rs. 12.32 lacs per acre in Block B in addition to other statutory benefits as per provisions of the Act.
3. According to Revised Section 19 Statement filed by the Collector, the petitioners' respective share and measurement of land are as follows :
Sr. Name of the Khasra Total Area Share
No. petitioners no.
(Bigha Biswa)
14//11 4 - 16
1 Ajit Singh
12 4 - 16
13//1 1 - 09
20 4 - 16
15//14/1 2 - 08
15/1 2 - 02
Anil Kumar
2 55//19 4 - 16
20 4 - 16
21 4 - 16
22 4 - 16
: 3 of 38 : LAC 365 A/06 / Ajeet Singh Vs. UOI
4. The petitioners admitted the revised statement u/s 19 of the Act to the extent of Khasra numbers and measurement of the acquired land.
5. The petitioners did not accept the market value determined by the LAC and preferred reference petition u/s 18 of the Act. The petitioners have taken several grounds against the award of the Collector inter alia mentioned hereinafter.
6. The petitioner alleged that the market value of the land awarded by the Collector in the award @ Rs. 13.82 lacs per acre in respect of land in category A and @ Rs. 12.32 per acre in respect of land in category B is at the lower rate and not based on the guide lines laid down in Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act for fixation of the fair market value of the land.
7. The Collector failed to consider that land in village Dhool Siras was fully developed well before the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and all the amenities, like, telephone, roads, transport, schools, banks, hospitals were available to the land in question. The Collector failed to appreciate that land has been acquired for development of Pappan Kalan, Phase II and the land of the Petitioners is likely to be sold by DDA @ Rs. 10,000/- to 15,000/- per square meter.
8. The Collector failed to consider the claims of the Petitioners in respect of providing of equally situated and equipped land and only solatium and shifting expenses in addition to rehabilitation charges. The : 4 of 38 : LAC 365 A/06 / Ajeet Singh Vs. UOI Collector also failed to appreciate that village Dhool Siras is fully developed and it is nearest to Palam Airport, Palam Vihar colony of Ansal's, Pappan Kalan Phase I and all facilities and amenities are available there.
9. The Collector did not assess the compensation for tube wells, wells, trees and development made by the Petitioners which has to be in addition of the market value of the land. The Petitioner prayed for fixing the market value at the rate of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore) per square meter along with all other statutory benefits and costs.
10. Union of India contested the claim and taken the preliminary objection that Delhi Land Reforms Act is applicable and petition is time barred. The land under acquisition is not surrounded by any developed or undeveloped colony and used for only agricultural purposes. There were no trees, well or tube well at the time of publication of notification u/s 4 of the Act. On merits, all the averments are denied. It is stated that petitioners are not entitled to enhancement of compensation and petition is liable to be dismissed.
11. The Delhi Development Authority has been impleaded as respondent no.2 as per directions of Supreme Court. Delhi Development Authority also filed the written statement. The preliminary objection taken by DDA is that the determination of market value by the Collector includes the consideration of the sale deeds of adjoining village, amenities and facilities and other circumstances and compensation is adequate, sufficient, just and legal. It is stated that petitioners are not entitled for grant of enhancement of compensation and petition is liable to be dismissed.
: 5 of 38 : LAC 365 A/06 / Ajeet Singh Vs. UOI
12. On the pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 14-03-2007 this Court framed the following issues :-
1 What was the market value of the land in dispute at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act and what enhanced compensation, if any the Petitioner is entitled ?
2 Relief ?
13. The petitioners examined one of the petitioners, Ajit as PW- 1, Shri Dharam Pal as PW-2, Shri Laxman Singh as PW-3, Shri Mukhtiyar Singh as PW-4, Shri Suraj Bhan as PW-5, Shri Harish Kumar as PW-6, Shri Neelam Sudhir as PW-7, Shri Ombir as PW-8, Shri Shambhu Prasad as PW- 9, Shri Kushal Pal Sharma as PW-10, Shri Vijay Kumar as PW-11, Shri S.K. Gupta as PW-12, Shri Naubat Singh as PW-13, Shri Manoj Kumar as PW- 14, Shri Sanjay Kumar as PW-15, Shri Hoshiar Singh as PW-16, Shri Devender Singh as PW-17, Shri Amit Kumar as PW-18, Shri I.P. Grover as PW-19, Shri Komal Grover as PW-20, Shri Subhash Chand Chawla as PW- 21, Shri MKG Shrivastava as PW-22 and Shri Anil Kumar Sharma as PW-
23.
14. On the other hand, Respondent Union of India examined Shri Dharam Pal official from Sub-Registrar Office to prove the sale deeds as RW-1 and Shri Suraj Bhan, Patwari of Village Salahapur as RW-2 in the leading case titled "Suraj Bhan Versus UOI" bearing "LAC NO. 136-A/06". At the joint request of parties, this Court allowed that the evidence led on behalf on Respondents in the leading case mentioned above, shall be read in all other connected cases represented through counsel, Shri Anil Chauhan. Respondent no. 2, Delhi Development Authority did not produce any witness and adopted the evidence led by Union of India.
: 6 of 38 : LAC 365 A/06 / Ajeet Singh Vs. UOI
15. I have heard oral arguments of both the counsel of parties at length. Counsel for petitioners also filed written arguments in the leading case titled "Suraj Bhan Versus UOI" bearing "LAC NO. 136-A/06". I have gone through the record. My findings on the aforesaid issues are as follows:-
Issues No. 1 & 2
16. Counsel for petitioners has elaborated the urbanization in Delhi State and the legislative enactments which are in force. He submits that the Delhi Development Act came into force on 30-12-1957 thereafter various provisions of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act came into force between 02-01-1958 to 05-04-1958. The Master Plan of Delhi came into force in 1962. According to this plan, Dwarka Phase I and II were part of agricultural/rural zone. A notification dated 27-01-1984 issued for acquisition of land measuring 3550 Hectares bounded by Pankha Road, Rewari Railway Line, Oil Pipeline and Najafgarh Road which includes various villages such as, Bharthal, Palam, Pochanpur etc. and this Plan is for Dwarka Phase I. Another notification issued on 20-07-1988 under Section 12 of Delhi Development Act measuring 209 Hectares declaring development area no. 172 bounded by Oil Pipeline, Najafgarh Road, Rewari Line, Najafgarh Drain, Bijwasan Road now it is known as Dwarka Phase II.
17. The Master Plan of Delhi 2001 came into force on 01-08-1990 which shows that Dwarka Phase I and II were part of agricultural and rural zone. The Delhi Urban Art Commission approved the conceptual plan of Dwarka Project in September, 1990. As per : 7 of 38 : LAC 365 A/06 / Ajeet Singh Vs. UOI advertisement in Newspaper dated 23-08-1993 (Exb. P-1/1) and Plan of Dwarka (Exb. P-1/2 and Exb. P-1/3), DDA issued notice dated 09-07-1988 under Section 11 of Delhi Development Act inviting the objections for change of land use of the area measuring 3052 Hectares bounded by the Najafgarh Road, Pankha Road, Rewari Line and Oil Pipeline on the South West side. Consequently, the land use was changed vide notification dated 27-12-1993 which is known as Dwarka Phase I.
18. A notification dated 24-10-1994 (Exb. P-1/6) issued under Section 507 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act wherein various villages including Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal declared part of urban area. A public notice was issued on 23-08-1993 inviting the objections for change of land use of 1996 Hectares of land bounded by Oil Pipeline, Najafgarh Road, Rewari Railway Line, Najafgarh Drain and Bijwasan Road which is now known as Dwarka Phase II. Thereafter a notice dated 16-10-2000 under Section 11-A of Delhi Development Act was issued and Master Plan of Delhi was modified. The land use was changed from rural zone to residential, commercial etc. He further pointed out that acquired land of the petitioners falls under the notification dated 16-10-2000.
19. Another notification dated 05-03-1999 was issued in respect of guidelines of involvement of private sector for development of land and construction of use as per Exb. P-1/8. The Government of Delhi issued notification dated 13-12-2000 under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of land of Village Dhool Siras, Bharthal, Pochanpur etc. for Dwarka Phase II. The notification dated 07-12-2001 was issued under Section 6 and possession of the land was taken over on 20-08-2002 and award was announced on 24-10-2002 by the LAC wherein market value : 8 of 38 : LAC 365 A/06 / Ajeet Singh Vs. UOI was fixed at the rate of 13.82 lacs per acre in Block A and Rs. 12.32 lacs in Block B, however in the award no compensation was allowed for tube wells, wells, borings, structures, trees etc.
20. Counsel for petitioners contended that the LAC while fixing the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 13.82 lacs per acre relied on minimum rates fixed by Government for agricultural land as on 01-04-2000. The LAC erred in fixing the market value as agricultural land. He did not consider the change of land use under acquisition as per Master Plan which was modified on 16-10-2000 wherein petitioners' land use was changed from agricultural to residential, commercial, industrial etc. Counsel for petitioners relied on judgments of Jai Lal Vs. UOI 94 (2001) DLT 429 and Om Prakash Vs. UOI 112 (2004) DLT 891 (SC). The LAC also not considered the notification dated 24-10-1994 issued under Section 507 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act whereby villages Dhool Siras and Bharthal ceased to be part of rural area of Delhi and formed part of urban area of Delhi.
21. Counsel for petitioners contended that market value of the land under acquisition required to be fixed keeping in view the above said vital facts of Master Plan 2001 and notification under Section 507 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act in respect of change of land use. The land of petitioners is the part of Vasant Vihar Tehsil, District South West. According to notification dated 16-04-1999 (Exb. P-1/45), as per circular the residential schedule shows the rate of Rs. 11,550/- per square metre and commercial rate of Rs. 24,150/- per square metre. As per documents proved on record Exb. PW-19/1 to Exb. PW-19/5 show that approved : 9 of 38 : LAC 365 A/06 / Ajeet Singh Vs. UOI predetermined rates for Dwarka for land allotted to CGHS was Rs. 4,374/- per square metre for 2000-01, for alternative plot Rs. 3832 and for industrial was Rs. 4380. The rates for institutional allotment of Dwarka were Rs. 447.30 lacs per acre and auction reserve rate was Rs. 49,500/- for the year 2006-07 and average auction rate was Rs. 1,76,020/- per square metre. As per Exb. P-1/27, DDA fixed the auction rates of Rs. 54,450/- per square metre and according to Exb. PW-22/3, plot of land was sold for Rs. 1,76,020/- per square metre on 23-08-2006.
22. Counsel for petitioners contented that LAC should have considered urbanization in the locality of the acquired land of the village and development taken place in the surrounding area and applied the method of determining the market value of the land as highlighted herein above. Counsel further relied on Awards of village Mangolpur (Exb. P-1/29) and village Mohammad Pur (Exb. P-1/30) wherein LAC considered the notification under Section 507 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act and passed the award. He further submitted that while fixing the market value of the land, potentiality and future prospects are also required to be considered. The LAC did not consider the sale deeds filed by the villagers Exb. P-1/11 to Exb. P-1/18 in respect of Village Pochanpur and Exb. P-1/19 of village Samalkha. According to these sale deeds, total land measuring 42 Bigha 10 Biswa was sold for Rs. 16 crores.
23. Counsel for petitioners contended that while fixing the market value of the land, the potentiality of the land in view of above highlighted facts and documentary proof may be taken into consideration. It has to be visualized that at the time of notification in the year 2000 what future would be unfolded in the year 2008 while deciding : 10 of 38 : LAC 365 A/06 / Ajeet Singh Vs. UOI reference under Section 18 of the Act. There is no doubt that market value may be determined by the Court as on 13-12-2000 but the reality and potentiality may be considered. It is relevant to consider that Delhi has already been urbanized and land on other other sides of the border in Haryana District Gurgaon has been developed in colonies such as DLF, Palam Vihar, Sushant Lok, various sectors under Haryana Urban Development Authority up to Manesar and land between the said colonies and the land of the petitioners were available for the colonization.
24. Counsel for petitioners contended that according to Master Plan, there is provision for use of land contrary to the Master Plan. The land falling under agricultural/rural use zone cannot be used for residential, commercial and institutional use. However after various notifications which are proved on record in respect of Master Plan and change of land use of the petitioners from agricultural to residential, commercial etc. the market value of the petitioners' land now falls as of urban land. Therefore, market value may be determined as the value of urban land. The principle of determination of market value of urban land may be applied and development cost ranging from 1/3rd to 1/5th may be deducted.
25. Counsel for petitioners further contented that the sale deeds proved by Union of India Exb. R-1/1 to R-1/18 are inadmissible according to Section 35 of Indian Stamp Act. These sale deeds cannot be compared with the sale deeds proved by the petitioners because village Salahapur, Bijwasan and Rajokari are parts of green belt. The sale deeds of village Dhool Siras filed by UOI Exb. R-1/5 to R-1/7 are pertaining to the portion : 11 of 38 : LAC 365 A/06 / Ajeet Singh Vs. UOI of the land which is used only for agricultural purpose and falls under rural zone as per Master Plan because vide notification dated 16-10-2000 the land use mentioned in the sale deeds filed by Union of India of village Dhool Siras was not changed. The letter issued by Government of India wherein minimum rates of sale, purchase of agricultural land are fixed is showing the minimum rates for the purposes of stamp duty. According to copy of letter dated 25-07-2007, the stamp duty payable was Rs. 11,20,000/- per acre on the sale deed but none of the sale deeds is stamped according to this value. He further submitted that petitioners proved genuine sale deeds, all notifications of Government, documentary proof of auctions as well as cost of development and other criteria for fixing the market value of the acquired land of the petitioners.
26. Counsel for petitioners relied on following judgments :
1 Jai Lal Vs. UOI D.L.T. 2001 (94) 429 2 Om Prakash Vs. UOI D.L.T. 2004 (112) 3 State of Punjab Vs. Harchal Singh A.I.R. 2006 SC 2122 4 Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam Vs. N. Munikrishna Reddy & Others A.I.H.C. 2005 725 5 Harichand Vs. UOI DLT 2001 (91) 602 6 Ram Chandra Vs. UOI R.F.A. No. 416/1986 7 Anil Kumar Sharma Vs. UOI DLT 2000 (86) 825 8 Phira Ram & Ors. Vs. UOI DLT 1994 (55) 9 Tindy & Ors. Vs. UOI DRJ 2000 (54) 384 10 Rattan Lal Vs. UOI DLT 2001 (94) 378 11 P.N. Singh Vs. UOI 1997 I AD (Delhi) 83 12 Chandan Vs. UOI DLT 1992 (48) 202 13 Om Prakash Vs. UOI DLT 2003 (104) 1024 14 UOI Vs. Harinder Pal Singh AIR 2006 SC 447 : 12 of 38 : LAC 365 A/06 / Ajeet Singh Vs. UOI 15 DDA Vs. LAC DLT 2006 (130) 1 16 DDA Vs. LAC DLT 2006 (130) 194 17 Trikha Ram Vs. Sahib Ram DLT 1997 (69) 749 18 Gur Partap Singh Vs. UOI DLT 2004 (111) 25 19 Lt. Governor of Delhi Vs. Gurpurtap Singh DLT 2004 (113) 690 20 WP(C) No. 20245/2005 dated 09.11.2006 21 Delhi Science Forum Vs. DDA DLT 2004 (112) 944
27. Counsel for Union of India submitted that the acquired land of the petitioners is agricultural land and according to testimony of petitioners, the land remained as agricultural land till its acquisition. He submitted that the various notifications of the Government as highlighted by the Counsel for petitioners do not change the nature and use of the land of the petitioners which remained as agricultural land. He further submitted that Government applied the formula for fixing the minimum rates of agricultural land and issued rates after considering the escalation of the market price may be in a year, two years or five years.
28. Counsel for Union of India submitted that the sale deeds relied upon by the counsel for petitioners are of very higher side and show more than 100 per cent escalation which cannot be the basis for determining the market value. He further submitted that Union of India produced certified copies of sale deeds Exb. R-1/1 to R-1/18 including sale deeds of village Dhool Siras and other adjoining villages which show the correct picture of market price of sale of agricultural land at the time of acquisition of land. He further submitted that Section 35 has no role to play. The certified copies of sale deeds relied upon by Union of India are : 13 of 38 : LAC 365 A/06 / Ajeet Singh Vs. UOI admissible and proved piece of evidence according to Section 51 A of Land Acquisition Act. He relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court titled as Satpal & Ors. Vs. Union of India AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 3882.
29. Counsel for Union of India submitted that there is no effect of notifications issued by Delhi Development Authority and Municipal Corporation of Delhi, especially notification of urbanization of Village u/s 507 of DMC Act. He further submitted that the potentiality of land where building can be raised may be considered but should be according to the principle laid down by Supreme Court in the judgment of P. Ram Reddy & Ors. Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad (1995) 2 Supreme Court Cases 305. He also pointed out that sale deeds Exb. P-1/31 and Ex. P-1/32 of State of Haryana filed by petitioners have no relevance while referring to the acquisition of land of Village Dhool Siras and Bijwasan. He relied upon the judgment of Shakuntalabai and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra (1996) 2 Supreme Court Cases 152.
30. Counsel for Union of India submitted that principle of law laid down by Supreme Court for determining the market value of the acquired land. The basic principle is based upon the comparison of sale deeds which reflect the price trend of the acquired land at the time of notification u/s 4 of the Act. The Awards of Village Mangolpur and Mohammad Pur Exb. P-1/29 and Exb. P-1/30 are not binding on this Court. He further submitted that the documentary proof of developed colonies, plots or commercial plots or residential plots cannot be compared with the acquisition of agricultural land. He further submitted that Land Acquisition Collector has already awarded compensation on the higher side which is just, fair and does not require any interference by the court.
: 14 of 38 : LAC 365 A/06 / Ajeet Singh Vs. UOI
31. Counsel for Union of India relied on the following judgments :-
(1)Smt. Tribeni Devi & Ors. Vs. The Collector, Ranchi AIR 1972 Supreme Court 1417.
(2)Adussumilli Gopalkrishna Versus Spl. Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1870. (3)Suresh Kumar Versus Town Improvement Trust, Bhopal AIR 1989 Supreme Court 1222 (4)Spl. Tehsildar Land Acquisition Vishakhapatnam Vs. Smt. A. Mangala Gowri AIR 1992 Supreme Court 666 (5)Jawajee Nagnatham Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad, AP and others. (1994) 4 Supreme Court Cases 595 (6)P. Ram Reddy and others Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (1995) 2 Supreme Court Cases 305 (7)Agriculture Produce Market Committee Vs. Land Acquisition Officer and Asstt. Commissioner & Anr. Etc. JT 1996 (9) S.C. 432 (8)Shakuntalabai and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra (1996) 2 Supreme Court Cases 152 (9)Special Dy. Collector and another etc. Vs. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and others AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2625 (10)Satpal & Ors. Vs. Union of India AIR 1997 Supreme Court 3882 (11)Kanwar Singh & Ors Vs. Union of India VIII (1998) SLT 515 (12)Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors. Versus Gurpratap Singh & Ors. 113 (2004) Delhi Law Times 690 (DB) : 15 of 38 : LAC 365 A/06 / Ajeet Singh Vs. UOI
32. I have given thoughtful consideration to the respective oral and written submissions of both the counsel and perused the voluminous record. Before examining the issue of determination of market value of the acquired land, firstly I would like to refer to relevant provisions of Land Acquisition Act which are Section 23 and 24 which are reproduced hereunder :-
Section 23. Matters to be considered in determining compensation -
(1) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration----
first, the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section (1). secondly, the damage sustained by the person interested, by reason of the taking of any standing crops or trees which may be on the land at the time of the Collector's taking possession thereof;
thirdly, the damage (if any), sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of severing such land from his other land; fourthly, the damage (if any), sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriosuly affecting his other property, movable or immovable, in any other manner, or his earnings;
fifthly, if, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Collector, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such change; and sixthly, the damage (if any), bona fide resulting from diminution of the profits of the land between the time of the publication of the declaration under Section 6 and the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land. (1A)............................................................... (2).................................................................
: 16 of 38 : LAC 365 A/06 / Ajeet Singh Vs. UOI Section 24. Matters to be neglected in determining compensation. -- But the Court shall take into consideration----
first, the degree of urgency which has led to the acquisition; secondly, any disinclination of the person interested to part with the land acquired;
thirdly, any damage sustained by him which, if caused by a private person, would not render such person liable to a suit; fourthly, any damage which is likely to be caused to the land acquired, after the date of the publication of the declaration under section 6, by or in consequence of the use to which it will be put;
fifthly, any increase to the value of the land acquired likely to accrue from the use to which it will be put when acquired; sixthly, any increase to the value of the other land of the person interested likely to accrue from the use to which the land acquired will be put;
seventhly, any outlay or improvements on, or disposal of, the land acquired commenced, made or effected without the sanction of the Collector after the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4 sub-section 1;
eighthly, any increase to the value of the the land on account of its being part to any use which is forbidden by land or opposed to public policy.
33. The determination of market value of acquired land shall be keeping in view the settled principles of law in evaluating market value in compulsory acquisition on the hypothesis of a willing Vendor and a willing Vendee. Therefore, let us glance through the settled principles of law in this regard.
34. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Narayan Gajapati Raju Vs. Revenue Divisional officer, AIR 1939 PC 98 held that :
"compensation for compulsory acquisition governed by Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is the market value of the land at the date of publication of the : 17 of 38 : LAC 365 A/06 / Ajeet Singh Vs. UOI notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act "what a willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from the willing purchaser".
35. The function of the Court in awarding compensation under the Act is to ascertain the market value of the land at the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and the evaluation may be as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Adinarayana Setty AIR 1959 SC 429 where the Supreme Court laid down the following principles :
"(1) Opinion of experts; (2) The price paid within a reasonable time in bona fide transactions of purchase of the land acquired or the land adjacent to the acquired land and possessing similar advantages; (3) Number of years of purchase of the actual or immediately perspective profits of the land acquired."
36. In Tribeni Devi Vs. Collector of Ranchi AIR 1972 SC 1417, the Supreme Court held that :
"for determining compensation payable to the owner of the land, the market value is to be determined by reference to the price which may be reasonable obtained from willing purchasers but since it may not be possible to ascertain this with any amount of precision the authority charged with the duty to award compensation is bound to make an estimate judged by an objective standard. While reiterating the three tests laid down in S.L.A. Officer's case, it was further emphasized that these methods, however, do not preclude the Court from taking any other special circumstances into consideration, the requirement being always to arrive at as nearly as possible at an estimate of the market value. In : 18 of 38 : LAC 365 A/06 / Ajeet Singh Vs. UOI arriving at a reasonable correct market value it may be necessary to take even two or all these methods into account inasmuch as the exact evaluation is not always possible as no two lands may be the same either in respect of the situation or the extent or potentiality nor is it possible in all cases to have reliable material from which the valuation can be accurately determined.
37. In P. Ram Reddy and Others Versus Land Acquisition Officer (1995) 2 SCC 305, the Supreme Court held that :
"An acquired land could be regarded as that which has a building potentiality, if such land although was used on the relevant date envisaged under Section 4(1) of the LA Act for agricultural or horticultural or other like purposes or was on that date even barren or waste, had the possibility of being used immediately or in the near future as land for putting up residential, commercial, industrial or other buildings. However, the fact that the acquired land had been acquired for building purposes, cannot be sufficient circumstance to regard it as a land with building potentiality, in that, under clause (4) of Section 24 of the LA Act that any increase to the value of land likely to accrue from the use to which it will be put when acquired, is required to be excluded. Therefore, wherever, there is a possibility of the acquired land not used for building purposes on the relevant date envisaged under Section 4 (1) of the LA Act, of being used for putting up buildings either immediately or in the near future but not in the distant future, then such acquired land would be regarded as that which has a building potentiality. Even so, when can it be said that there is the possibility of the acquired land being used in the immediate or near future for putting up buildings, would be the real question. Such possibility of user of the acquired land for building purposes can never be wholly a matter of conjecture or surmise or guess. On the other hand, it should be a matter of inference : 19 of 38 : LAC 365 A/06 / Ajeet Singh Vs. UOI to be drawn based on appreciation of material placed on record to establish such possibility. Material so placed on record or made available must necessarily relate to the matters such as :
(i) the situation of the acquired land vis-a-vis the city or the town or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other kind of importance or because of its explosive population;
(ii)the suitability of the acquired land for putting up the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial, as the case may be;
(iii)possibility of obtaining water and electric supply for occupants of buildings to be put upon that land;
(iv)absence of statutory impediments or the like for using the acquired land for building purposes;
(v)existence of highways, public roads, layouts of building plots or developed residential extensions in the vicinity or close proximity of the acquired land;
(vi)benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land which may become available to the occupiers of buildings, if built on the acquired land; and
(vii) lands around the acquired land or the acquired land itself being in demand for building purposes, to specify a few.
: 20 of 38 : LAC 365 A/06 / Ajeet Singh Vs. UOI The material to be so placed on record or made available in respect of the said matters and the like, cannot have the needed evidentiary value for concluding that the acquired land being used for building purposes in the immediate or near future unless the same is supported by reliable documentary evidence, as far as the circumstances permit. When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibility of the acquired land being used for putting up buildings in the immediate or near future, such conclusion would be sufficient to hold that the acquired land had a building potentiality and proceed to determine its market value taking into account the increase in price attributable to such building potentiality."
38. In Shaji Kuriakose Vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. (2001) 7 SCC 650, the Supreme Court held that :
"3. It is no doubt true that courts adopt comparable sales method of valuation of land while fixing the market value of the acquired land. While fixing the market value of the acquired land, comparable sales method of valuation is preferred than other methods of valuation of land such as capitalisation of net income method or expert opinion method. Comparable sales method of valuation is preferred because it furnishes the evidence for determination of the market value of the acquired land at which a willing purchaser would pay for the acquired land if it had been sold in the open market at the time of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act. However, comparable sales method of valuation of land for fixing the market value of the acquired land is not always conclusive. There are certain factors which are required to be fulfilled and on fulfilment of those factors the compensation can be awarded, according to the value of the land reflected in the sales. The factors laid down inter alia are : (1) the sale must be a genuine transaction, (2) that the sale deed must have been executed at the time proximate to the date of issue of notification : 21 of 38 : LAC 365 A/06 / Ajeet Singh Vs. UOI under Section 4 of the Act, (3) that the land covered by the sale must be in the vicinity of the acquired land, (4) that the land covered by the sales must be similar to the acquired land, and (5) that the size of plot of the land covered by the sales be comparable to the land acquired. If all these factors are satisfied, then there is no reason why the sale value of the land covered by the sales be not given for the acquired land. However, if there is a dissimilarity in regard to locality, shape, site or nature of land between land covered by sales and land acquired, it is open to the court to proportionately reduce the compensation for acquired land that what is reflected in the sales depending upon the disadvantages attached with the acquired land."
39. In Viluben Jhalejar Contractor Vs. State of Gujarat (2005) 4 SCC 789 the Supreme Court held that :
"18. One of the principles for determination of the amount of compensation for acquisition of land would be the willingness of an informed buyer to offer the price therefor. It is beyond any cavil that the price of the land which a willing and informed buyer would offer would be different in the cases where the owner is in possession and enjoyment of the property and in the cases where he is not.
19. Market value is ordinarily the price the property may fetch in the open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the special needs of a particular purchase. Where definite material is not forthcoming either in the shape of sales of similar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the date of notification under Section 4(1) or otherwise, other sale instances as well as other evidences have to be considered.
20. The amount of compensation cannot be ascertained : 22 of 38 : LAC 365 A/06 / Ajeet Singh Vs. UOI with mathematical accuracy. A comparable instance has to be identified having regard to the proximity from time angle as well as proximity from situation angle. For determining the market value of the land under acquisition, suitable adjustment has to be made having regard to various positive and negative factors vis-a-vis the land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. The positive and negative factors are as under :
Positive factors Negative factors
(i) smallness of size (i) largeness of area.
(ii) proximity to a road (ii) situation in the
interior at a distance
from the road.
(iii) frontage on a road (iii) narrow strip of land
with very small frontage
compared to depth.
(iv) nearness to (iv) lower level requiring
developed area depressed portion to be
filled up
(v) regular shape (v) remoteness from
developed locality
(vi) level vis-a-vis land (vi) some special
under acquisition disadvantageous factors
which would deter a
purchaser
(vii) special value for an
owner of an adjoining
property to whom it
may have some very
special advantage
40. In a recent case Union of India Versus Pramod Gupta (Dead) by LRs. and others (2005) 12 Supreme Court Cases 1, the Supreme Court considered the two methods laying down the principles for determining the market value. Firstly, what a willing vendor might : 23 of 38 : LAC 365 A/06 / Ajeet Singh Vs. UOI reasonably expect to obtain from the willing purchaser. Secondly, comparison of sale deeds. In the absence of any direct evidence, the Court, however, may take recourse to various other known methods. The area of land, the nature thereof, advantages and disadvantages occurring therein amongst others would be relevant factors for determining the actual market value of the land. Evidence admissible therefor inter alia would be judgments and awards passed in respect of acquisitions of lands made in the same village and/or neighbouring villages.
41. In the backdrop of principles of law for determination of market value of the land as discussed herein above, the contentions of the counsel for petitioners require to be examined. The contention of petitioners' counsel that acquired land falls in South West District of Delhi i.e. Vasant Vihar Tehsil and PW-1 Shri Ajit and PW-12 Shri S.K. Gupta, Tehsildar proved the map of district South West Exb. P-1/41 and Government notification dated 16-04-1999 Exb. P-1/45 issued by Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment for fixing land rates in Delhi. The market value may be determined as per said circular which is nearest to the villages Dhool Siras and Bharthal and falls as a part of Vasant Vihar District. As per schedule, residential rate was Rs. 11,550/- per square metre and commercial rate was Rs. 24,150/- per square metre. PW-19 I.P. Grover from Land Cost Department of DDA proved the development cost of land in Dwarka vide Exb. PW-19/1 to PW-19/5. The average auction rate of Dwarka Phase I for residential was Rs. 19,361/- per square metre in the year 2000-01 and Rs. 1,95,369/- in the year 2006-07. The petitioners relied on Exb. PW-22/1, PW-22/2 and PW-22/3 i.e. the demand rates of DDA and Government of India vide letters dated 23-08-
: 24 of 38 : LAC 365 A/06 / Ajeet Singh Vs. UOI 2006 and 23-10-2006. The counsel for petitioners contended that the market value should be determined as per rate prevailing in District Vasant Vihar and Dwarka Phase I after deduction of development cost as per various judgments of Supreme Court.
42. The method of determination of market value comprising of factors that acquired land is a part of Vasant Vihar District as the first basis is erroneous at the first sight. The Vasant Vihar District is comprising of fully developed locality. The Vasant Vihar land rates as proved on record are after around more than 40 years of acquisition of land and development of Vasant Vihar locality. The acquired land of petitioners cannot be compared with locality of Vasant Vihar which is 40 years ahead in development. The guess work to compare potentiality of Vasant Vihar land with acquired land of petitioners in December, 2000 is beyond comparison and contrary to the well settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court.
43. The second factor contended by the Counsel for petitioners is the auction of residential and commercial plots of Dwarka Phase I. In this regard, the demand of pre-determined rates and auction of plots by DDA after development of the colony especially pertaining to the year 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006, which are highlighted by the counsel for petitioners, cannot be considered as contrary to the well settled principle of law by the Supreme Court that the determination of the market value must be on the day of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The Supreme Court in a recent case laid down the principle on the proposition discussed herein above in respect of determination of market value of the acquired land. The judgments relate to village of Delhi state.
: 25 of 38 : LAC 365 A/06 / Ajeet Singh Vs. UOI In the case of Ranvir Singh and another Vs. Union of India AIR 2005 Supreme Court 3467, the Supreme Court held that :
"29. While adopting the said method, in our opinion, the High Court committed manifest errors. The market value of fully developed land cannot be compared with 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 land pays an important role.
31. 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 of 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 2½ % of the total amount of the 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 wroth 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 lease-hold rights in the residential plots under the Rohini Scheme.
41. Keeping in vie the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgments cannot be sustained and accordingly the same are set aside."
44. In an another case, R.P. Singh Vs. Union of India and others AIR 2005 Supreme Court 4189, the Supreme Court held that :
"12. 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 : 26 of 38 : LAC 365 A/06 / Ajeet Singh Vs. UOI lacs per bigha cannot be accepted. Counsel for the respondent has brought to our notice that the land is now fully developed and for its development the respondents have spent a lot of money and the claimant would not be entitled to a higher price simply because after 40 years of acquisition and its development the land was being sold at a higher price. As already stated above, the market value of the land has to be determined as on the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and not as it prevails at a later date after the land has been fully developed."
45. The determination of market value of the acquired land on the basis of methods proposed by the Counsel for the petitioners are not in consonance with the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgments of Ranvir Singh and another Vs. Union of India (Supra) and R.P. Singh Vs. Union of India and others (Supra). Hence, the methods as proposed by counsel for petitioners for determining the market value of the acquired land cannot be applied.
46. Counsel for petitioners further contended and elaborated how urbanization has taken place in Delhi since 1957. He further highlighted the Dwarka Phase I project which took off in the year 1990, the effect of notification dated 24.10.1994 u/s 507 of DMC Act, change of land use from rural/agricultural to residential/commercial on 16.10.2000 and acquisition as per Master Plan for Dwarka phase-II created the potentiality of the land which can be used in future for residential, commercial and industrial purposes. He relied on various advertisements and notifications including assembly of land for colonization or development Exb. P-1/35 and Exb. P-1/36. Counsel for petitioners contended that the acquired land has potential after change of land use : 27 of 38 : LAC 365 A/06 / Ajeet Singh Vs. UOI and preparation of Master Plan especially Zonal Master Plan of 2001. The determination of the market value of the land has great potentiality and while determining the market value, the Court may consider the potentiality of the land and also apply some guess work for future land use after acquisition. Counsel for petitioners relied upon the judgments Harichand Vs. UOI DLT 2001 (91) 602, Anil Kumar Sharma Vs. UOI DLT 2000 (86) 825, P.N. Singh Vs. UOI 1997 I AD (Delhi) 83 and Trikha Ram Vs. Sahib Ram DLT 1997 (69) 749.
47. The notification issued for change of land use and notification of MCD u/s 507 DMC Act shows that the Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal ceased to be agricultural and comes within the urban boundaries of Delhi State. The Master Plan and notifications of Government for land use change show that in future the land can be subjected to residential, commercial and other permissible uses. In case these notifications created potentiality of the acquired land to use for building purposes then how market value can be determined is laid down by the Supreme Court as discussed herein above.
48. In the judgment of P. Ram Reddy and ors. (supra), the Supreme Court cautiously laid down the principle according to which the relevant date envisaged u/s 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, of being used for putting up the buildings either immediately or in the near future but not in the distant future, then such acquired land would be regarded as that which has a building potentiality. Such possibility of user of the acquired land for building purposes can never be wholly a matter of conjecture or surmise or guess. The possibility of building potentiality of the land should be on the basis of documentary evidence. In the present case, the petitioners placed on : 28 of 38 : LAC 365 A/06 / Ajeet Singh Vs. UOI record the notification dated 16.10.2000 for Dwarka Phase-II showing change of land use from rural to residential/commercial etc. Earlier notification of MCD u/s 507 of DMC Act dated 24.10.1994 is Exb. P-1/6.
49. The petitioners have not placed any documentary proof which shows that after notification u/s 507 of DMC Act, any residential or commercial activities started in the Village especially at agricultural land. Similarly, as per notification dated 05.03.1999 in respect of private sector involvement for development of land and construction of houses as per Exb. P-1/8 any project came up for building or commercial use at the acquired land or in the vicinity of any other land of the villages. According to the testimony of PW-1 Shri Ajit till the acquisition of land, the land use was only for agricultural purposes. The guess work can be applied but it should be according to the principles of Supreme Court as laid down in the P. Ram Reddy's case.
50. The demand letters or auction rates of sale of plots at Dwarka Phase-II after about 20 years of development cannot be the basis for creating hypothesis of near future building potentiality of the acquired land. It is pertinent to mention here that the present land was acquired in the year 2000 and proceedings under Land Acquisition Act completed in 2002. The last five years show as per record there is no building activity started at the acquired land, therefore, the building potentiality of the land cannot be termed as it is being used for putting up buildings either immediately or in the near future. It is a clear case of building potentiality in the distant future may be after 15 years or 20 years, therefore, the acquired land as per material on record cannot be embodied with building potentiality either immediate or near future.
: 29 of 38 : LAC 365 A/06 / Ajeet Singh Vs. UOI
51. The petitioners in order to establish the potentiality and geography of the acquired land of the village Bharthal and Dhool Siras examined PW-5, Shri Suraj Bhan, Halka Patwari who proved the revenue map of village Pochanpur Exb. PW-1/38 who testified that the boundary of village Pochanpur touches the village Dhool Siras and Bharthal. PW-6, Shri Harish Kumar, Halka Patwari, village Bijwasan and Samalkha proved revenue maps of Villages Bijwasan and Samalkha Exb. PW-1/53 and PW-1/52. The boundary of village Bharthal touches the boundary of village Bijwasan. PW-7, Shri Neelam Sudhir, Patwari, village Bharthal proved the revenue map of village Bharthal Exb. P-1/54 and testified that boundaries of village Dhool Siras, Pochanpur, Bharthal touch the village Bharthal.
52. The revenue maps proved on record as discussed herein above prove that the acquired land of villages Dhool Siras and Bharthal is surrounded by other villages. The village Pochanpur touches the boundaries of both Village Dhool Siras and Bharthal. The boundary of another village Bamnoli also touches the boundaries of both the villages Dhool Siras and Bharthal. However boundary of village Bijwasan touches only Bharthal and village Samalkha is slightly at a distance from both the villages i.e. Bharthal and Dhool Siras. PW-12, Shri S.K. Gupta proved the digital map of South West District Exb. P-1/41. After perusal of Exb. P-1/41 District Vasant Vihar map the acquired land of Dwarka Phase I village is shown in red colour and part of Najafgarh District. The Villages Palam, Dabri etc. are adjacent to Delhi cantonment area and towards west side of Delhi. In between there is railway line. However the land acquired of both the villages Dhool Siras and Bharthal are shown in violet colour towards the boundary touching towards the State of Haryana. It clearly shows that the development of Dwarka Phase I has very less influence on the acquired land of village Dhool Siras and Bharthal.
: 30 of 38 : LAC 365 A/06 / Ajeet Singh Vs. UOI
53. Hence, on the basis of above discussions, as per principle laid down in P. Ram Reddy & Ors. Vs. Land Acquisition Officer (Supra) by the Supreme Court, geographical situation and potentiality of the acquired land of Villages Dhool Siras and Bharthal, it is not established that the acquired land has building potential of immediate or near future. There is no material on record to prove that even till 2007, the conceptual plan of Dwarka Phase II has started any building activity.
54. It is pertinent to mention here that the legislature in its wisdom has taken care in respect of methods proposed by the counsel for petitioners. The methods discussed herein above for determination of market value as per fully developed Vasant Vihar District locality or demand rates or auction rates proposed by DDA in respect of Dwarka Phase I. These methods are based upon the foundation of future potentiality which is prohibited by Section 24. According to Section 24 (fifthly and sixthly) the increase for future potentiality the compensation as expression of the statute is contrary to the calculations of compensation. The statute expressly enjoins to omit consideration of the future use of the land or potentialities. The Supreme Court reiterated this principle of law since the case of Narayan Gajapati Raju Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer (Supra). This principle is also being reiterated in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Brij Lal Mishra AIR 1996 SC 221.
55. Counsel for petitioners also relied on earlier awards of village Mangolpur Khurd bearing Award no. 11/1999-2000 Exb. P-1/29 and village Mohammad Pur, Munirka bearing Award no. 1/SW/2004-2005 Exb. P-1/30. At the outset, both the awards passed by the LAC are not binding before this : 31 of 38 : LAC 365 A/06 / Ajeet Singh Vs. UOI Court. The award of village Mohammad Pur Exb. P-1/30 is not relevant as it belongs to the year 2004-05. The another award of village Mangolpur Khurd Exb. P-1/29 is in respect of 2 Bigha and 3 Biswa of land located in Sector 2, Rohini which is an already developed residential colony, therefore, this award is also not relevant. These two awards are irrelevant for determination of market value in the present acquired land.
56. Now coming to the last contention of the counsel for petitioners in respect of the sale deeds proved on record on behalf of the petitioners. Before analyzing the sale deeds or determination of market value on the basis of proved sale deeds by both the parties, it has to be kept in mind the well settled principle in this regard settled by Supreme Court. In the case of Narayan Gajapati Raju Vs. Revenue Divisional officer (Supra), principle laid down that the best method as is well known would be the amount which a willing purchaser would pay to the owner of the land. In the recent case of Union of India Versus Pramod Gupta (Dead) by LRs. and others (Supra), the principle has been reiterated.
57. The counsel for petitioners relied on the following sale deeds :
SR. NO. NAME OF VILLAGE DATE AND AMOUNT EXHIBIT AND AREA 1 Pochanpur 03-05-1999 P-1/11 (2 Bigha 8 Biswa) ( Rs. 26,00,000/-) 2 Pochanpur 29-04-1999 P-1/12 (2 Bigha 1 Biswa) (Rs. 25,13,000/-) 3 Pochanpur 06-05-1999 P-1/13 (1 Bigha 19 Biswa) Rs. 22,00,000/-
4 Pochanpur 04-05-1999 P-1/14
(2 Bigha 4 Biswa) (Rs. 24,00,000/-)
: 32 of 38 : LAC 365 A/06 / Ajeet Singh Vs. UOI
SR. NO. NAME OF VILLAGE DATE AND AMOUNT EXHIBIT
AND AREA
5 Pochanpur 15-04-1999 P-1/15
(2 Bigha 12 Biswa) (Rs. 32,94,000/-)
6 Pochanpur 15-04-1999 P-1/16
(2 Bigha 12 Biswa) (Rs. 32,94,000/-)
7 Pochanpur 05-05-1999 P-1/17
(2 Bigha 8 Biswa) (Rs. 26,00,000/-)
8 Pochanpur 08-12-1999 P-1/18
(10 Bigha 8 Biswa) (Rs. 32,96,000/-)
9 Samalkha 27-01-2000 P-1/19
(43 Bigha 10 Biswa) (Rs. 16,00,00,000/-)
10 Mauza Ullawas, 31-08-2006 P-1/31
Tehsil Sohna (Rs. 55,00,00,000/-)
District Gurgaon
(5 Acre 6 Kanal
18 Marla )
11 Mauza Ullawas, 31-08-2006 P-1/32
Tehsil Sohna (Rs. 55,00,00,000/-)
District Gurgaon
(5 Acre 6 Kanal
18 Marla )
12 Samalkha 27-11-2006 P-1/33
(12 Bigha 1 Biswa) (Rs. 54,91,00,000/-)
13 Samalkha 27-11-2006 P-1/34
(12 Bigha) (Rs. 54,91,00,000/-)
58. The sale deeds Exb. P-1/33 and Exb. P-1/34 relied upon by the petitioners pertaining to Village Samalkha were executed on 27-11-
2006 i.e. after about 6 years of the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, therefore, these sale deeds are irrelevant and cannot be considered. Similarly, the sale deeds Exb. P-1/31 and Exb. P-1/32 pertaining to State of Haryana were executed on 31-08-2006 i.e. after about 6 years of the date of notification under Section 4 of Act. Therefore, these sale deeds are also irrelevant and cannot be considered.
: 33 of 38 : LAC 365 A/06 / Ajeet Singh Vs. UOI The remaining sale deeds Exb. P-1/11 to Exb. P-1/18 pertain to Village Pochanpur and the Vendee in all these sale deeds is one i.e. Radha Swami Satsang Beas. Hence, in totality all these sale deeds pertain to one transaction and also the approximate price comes out to Rs.60 lacs per acre. The other sale deed of village Samalkha Exb. P-1/19 is also of the approximate same rate.
59. On the other hand, Union of India proved the certified copies of 18 sale deeds, particulars of which are mentioned herein below :
SR. NO. NAME OF VILLAGE DATE AND AMOUNT EXHIBIT AND AREA 1 Bijwasan 15-02-1999 R-1/1 (04 Bigha 16 Biswa) (Rs.2,50,000/-) 2 Bijwasan 04-01-1999 R-1/2 (01 Bigha 08 Biswa) (Rs.1,73,560/-) 3 Bijwasan 01-11-2000 R-1/3 (01 Bigha 19 Biswa) (Rs.3,00,000/-) 4 Bamnoli 24-08-1998 R-1/4 (03 Bigha 08 Biswa) (Rs.80,000/-) 5 Dhool Siras 04-01-1999 R-1/5 (12 Bigha 1 Biswa) (Rs.5,00,000/-) 6 Dhool Siras 04-01-1999 R-1/6 (05 Bigha 3 Biswa) (Rs.5,00,000/-) 7 Dhool Siras 04-01-1999 R-1/7 (07 Bigha ) (Rs.5,00,000/-) 8 Rajokari 17-04-1998 R-1/8 (01 Bigha 4 Biswa) (Rs.2,50,000/-) 9 Rajokari 15-02-1999 R-1/9 (08 Bigha 8 Biswa) (Rs.1,50,000/-) 10 Kapashera 15-01-1999 R-1/10 (02 Bigha 10 Biswa) (Rs.3,00,000/-) 11 Samalkha 18-02-1999 R-1/11 (02 Bigha 8 Biswa) (Rs.3,25,000/-) 12 Samalkha 29-11-2000 R-1/12 (01 Bigha 4 Biswa) (Rs.1,50,000/-) 13 Samalkha 29-11-2000 R-1/13 (01 Bigha 4 Biswa) (Rs.1,50,000/-) 14 Chhawla 08-11-2000 R-1/14 (02 Bigha 4 Biswa) (Rs.1,20,000/-) : 34 of 38 : LAC 365 A/06 / Ajeet Singh Vs. UOI SR. NO. NAME OF VILLAGE DATE AND AMOUNT EXHIBIT AND AREA 15 Salhapur 18-11-2000 R-1/15 (02 Bigha 15 Biswa) (Rs.2,71,250/-) 16 Salhapur 18-11-2000 R-1/16 (03 Bigha 14 Biswa) (Rs.1,00,000/-) 17 Salhapur 18-11-2000 R-1/17 (01 Bigha 8 Biswa) (Rs.50,000/-) 18 Salhapur 02-11-2000 R-1/18 (06 Bigha ) (Rs.4,90,000/-)
60. The counsel for petitioners raised objection for admissibility of these sale deeds as these are in contravention of Section 35 of Indian Stamp Act. He also pointed out that these sale deeds are pertaining to part of Village land which was never subjected to land use change and remained as agricultural land. In my opinion, the certified copies of sale deeds are permitted to be exhibited as admissible evidence as per Section 51 A of the Act. The basic purpose of this provision is to have a look at the prevalent market value of the land either of the same village or neighbouring villages at the time of notification u/s 4 of the Act. The other purpose is to see the projection of rise in land prices. In my opinion, the sale deeds Ex. R-1/1 to R-1/18 are admissible for the purposes of reflecting the prevalent market value trend of the land of same village or neighbouring villages.
61. In the case of Satpal & Ors. Vs. Union of India (1997) 11 Supreme Court Cases 423, Supreme Court held that "if there is no explanation whatsoever for such a sharp increase in price of land in such a short time. The rise in price is more than 100 per cent within a very short period : 35 of 38 : LAC 365 A/06 / Ajeet Singh Vs. UOI which is not the usual prevailing trend in rise of prices in the area where the acquired land is situated. The more realistic sale deed, therefore be relied on those instances for assessing the market value of acquired land."
(This judgment is in regard to Village Palam acquired vide notification dated 27.01.1984 for Dwarka Phase-I).
62. The sale deeds proved by Union of India are showing much below the market value from the willing parties in order to avoid stamp duty by mentioning very low price as compared to sale deeds proved by petitioners. On the other hand, sale deeds produced by petitioners executed in favour of Radha Soami Satsang Beas and other sale deeds of Village Samalkha are showing the trend of high price prevailing approximately Rs.60 lacs per acre. The comparison of sale deeds shows rising prices to the extent of 400 to 500 per cent. There is no material on record to show or explain the comparative rise of price.
63. In the present case, sale deeds of Union of India are showing the trend of much below market value of the land and on the other hand petitioners' set of sale deeds is showing a sharp increase in the price of the land. Both the sets of sale deeds filed by petitioners and Union of India are showing two extreme poles of price of the land. There is no explanation on behalf of petitioners for this high price sale deed as compared to the sale deeds proved by Union of India. Even for arguments sake, the sale deeds of petitioners belong to the area where land use was in change but it cannot give rise to such a difference of 400-500 per cent increase in the sale price. These sale deeds are not realistic which reflect unusual trend in rise of prices, therefore, cannot be : 36 of 38 : LAC 365 A/06 / Ajeet Singh Vs. UOI the basis for assessing the market value of the acquired land. However, the sets of sale deeds relied by the petitioners and Union of India do not reflect the price of willing purchaser and willing buyer of the land. Hence on the basis of above observation and discussion, the sets of sale deeds proved by petitioners and Union of India do not set the basis to determine the market value of the acquired land.
64. The market value is fixed by the Government after granting appreciation of prices. The phenomena of escalation of land prices is embodied in fixing the land rate by the Government. In the present case Land Acquisition Collector fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.13.82 lakh per acre in block "A" and Rs.12.32 lakh per acre in block "B". The petitioners failed to establish the entitlement for enhancement of compensation on the basis of enquiry conducted as per material proved on record by parties for determination of market value of the acquired land. However, Land Acquisition Collector wrongly denied the appreciation of the price as per trend of rising price formula. The Collector fixed the market value as per policy dated 01.04.2000. The land in the present case was acquired vide notification dated 13.12.2000. The Collector wrongly denied the appreciation of price of land from 01.04.2000 to 13.12.2000 as there is no reliable evidence on record to show that price remained stagnant contrary to the rates fixed by the Government as per policies for later years adopting an increase @ 10 per cent to 12 per cent. Hence, market value of the land situated in village Dhool Siras be assessed after giving appreciation @ 12 per cent per annum for a period of about 8 months 13 days, total 257 days to arrive at just and fair market value of the acquired land. Accordingly by taking base value @ Rs.13.82 lakh per acre in block "A" and Rs.12.32 lakh per : 37 of 38 : LAC 365 A/06 / Ajeet Singh Vs. UOI acre in block "B" on 01.04.2000 and by giving appreciation of 12 per cent per annum for a period of 257 days, the market value of the acquired land would be Rs.14,98,769/- per acre in block "A" and Rs.13,36,095/- per acre in block "B". It is rounded off to Rs. 15,00,000/- per acre in Block "A" and Rs. 13,36,000/- per acre in Block "B". Hence, the fair market value assessed of the acquired land on 13.12.2000 is Rs. 15,00,000/- per acre in block "A" and Rs. 13,36,000/- per acre in block "B". Both the issues are decided accordingly. Relief:
65. On the basis of my findings on Issue nos. 1 and 2, the petitioners are entitled to compensation @ Rs. 15,00,000/- per acre in block "A" and Rs. 13,36,000/- per acre in block "B". Besides this the petitioners are also entitled to 30 per cent solatium on the market value of the land fixed in this case.
66. The petitioners shall also be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount/compensation awarded by this court u/s 28 of LA Act @ 9 per cent per annum from the date of award or dispossession whichever is earlier till the expiry of one year and thereafter @ 15 per cent per annum till payment.
67. The petitioners shall further be entitled to additional amount of 12 per cent per annum on the market value fixed in this case u/s 23 (1A) of the Act from the date of notification under section 4 of the Act till the date of dispossession or award whichever is earlier.
: 38 of 38 : LAC 365 A/06 / Ajeet Singh Vs. UOI
68. The petitioners shall further entitled to interest on solatium and additional amount as per directions given by Supreme Court in the case of Sunder Versus UOI DLT 2001 (SC) 569 wherein it is held that person entitled to compensation awarded is also entitled to get interest on the aggregate amount including solatium.
69. The interest on compensation for the period of delay due to impleading of LRs or stay of High Court or any other court may also be deducted.
70. The amount of compensation already paid to the petitioners be adjusted and deducted from total amount of compensation. No orders as to costs. The petition stands answered accordingly. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
71. A copy of the judgment be sent to Land Acquisition Collector (South West) for information and necessary action. File be consigned to record room.
( SANJAY KUMAR ) Additional District Judge (LAC) Room no. 230, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Announced in the open court on 15-03-2008