Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Block A - Rs. 1,86,500/- per bigha Block B - Rs. 1,61,500/- per bigha

2. Lands measuring about 1887 bighas was taken in Category A and 1701.18 bighas was taken in Category B and the owners of the lands were paid compensation accordingly. As stated, the basis for placing of lands measuring 1701.18 bighas of land out of the acquired lands, in the Category B was that the same consisted of Bhatta (Brick Kiln), which included Bhatha Grunds, gadhas up to 3 feet from which earth had been taken for making bricks. The claimants were dissatisfied from the award of the Collector and preferred petitions under Section 18 of the Act. In the case of Chajju Ram v. Union of India and Anr. LAC No. 35/2001, the learned Reference Court vide its judgment enhanced the compensation payable to the claimants while maintaining the categorisation of the lands and awarded the compensation @ Rs. 2,41,452/- per bigha for Block A lands and @ Rs. 2,01,452/- per bigha for Block B lands. While deciding this case, the Reference Court had also relied upon the judgment of the High Court in the case of Jai Lal (dead) through LRs. v. Union of India 2002 (62) DRJ 227. Against this judgment of the Reference Court, the Union of India preferred appeals praying that the judgment of the Court be set aside as the compensation awarded to the claimants was unreasonably high while the claimants preferred appeals against the same judgment praying for a further enhancement of the compensation awarded to them. Both these appeals were disposed of by a judgment of this Court in the case of Chajju Ram (D) through LRs. v. Union of India and Ors. RFA No. 522/2002, decided on 20.11.2003 whereby judgment of the Reference Court was set aside by the High Court and the case was remanded to the Reference Court with the following observations and directions:

11. The above findings of the Collector are based on what evidence or record is not reflected in the entire award. It cannot be disputed that at the time of the acquisition of the land, survey of the acquired land is conducted wherein every details in relation to the acquired land are expected to be noticed. This report is the very foundation on the basis of which any authority or court can come to the conclusion as to what was the user/state of the land at the time of acquisition. Unfortunately, in the present case, neither such a report appears to have been made available to the Collector nor was it produced before the Reference Court despite a specific plea being led by the claimants in that regard. These are findings of fact and must be recorded on the basis of some oral or documentary evidence which is maintained in the normal course of business of Departments of the State. In the event, there is no documentary or oral evidence to support such a finding it would certainly call for judicial correction. The Collector in the entire award does not even notice that he had the occasion to visit the acquired land or any part thereof during the acquisition proceedings. Thus, we have to examine this finding of fact on the basis of the evidence produced before the Reference Court. It is not in dispute that possession of the acquired lands were taken by the authorities on 18.12.1996. The possession thereof was taken vide kabza karwai (possession report) dated 18.12.1996 which was signed by as many as 15 persons from different Departments who had taken the possession. It included officers of DDA, Land Acquisition Departments, Officers of Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Engineering Department, Land and Building department and probably a number of them from number of other departments. This report is exhibited as Ex. PWR-7/A. In the very opening lines of this report, it is stated that 'The Officers mentioned therein had reached the spot and had taken possession of the land.' This report was stated to be correct as per the position existing on the site. Again, at the end of the report it was recorded that possession of a total area of 3549 bighas 19 biswas of land in which rabi crop was standing was taken along with the standing rabi crop and from all sides the land was marked by nishan dei. This document is expected to give the correct position existing on site on the date the possession of the acquired land was taken. In this possession report, there is no reference to brick kilns, brick gadhas, or gadhas of the level of 3 feet or more. In the copy of the khasra girdhwaris for the year 1996-97, 1997-98 in relation to the part of the land, there is no indication again that there was any brick kiln on the acquired land or part thereof.

12. Ram Niwas, one of the claimants and successor in interest of Chajju Ram (deceased) was examined in the Court as PW4. Besides making a lengthy statement in regard to the agricultural yield, this witness clearly stated that he was owner of the land measuring about 60 bighas falling within the revenue estate of Village Bawana which was acquired by the notification in question and the entire land was very fertile land. He even stated that in the crop season wheat and mustard used to be grown in addition to vegetables etc. He also stated that officials of the Horticulture Department used to visit their lands and make note of the crops existing on the site. His cross-examination was conducted by the counsel appearing for the respondents on different dates running into number of pages but not even a suggestion was made to this witness that his entire land, or part thereof, or the land surrounding his lands in the revenue estate of Village Bawana were being used for quite sometime for making brick kilns and/or there were brick kilns on the acquired lands.

17. Above is the documentary and oral evidence led by the claimants before the Reference Court. On the other hand, for the reasons best known to them, the respondents chose to withhold from the Reference Court all the relevant evidence. They opted not to examine any witness or produce any documents before the Reference Court. The survey report which ought to have been prepared prior to the acquisition was not produced either before the Reference Court or even before this Court. These are the documents which are in power and possession of the respondents and are maintained by them during the normal course of their business in completing the acquisition proceedings. In the event a party withholds the best evidence in its power and possession, the court would normally draw adverse inference against the party withholding the evidence. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents argued that the onus was on the claimants and it was not obligatory on the part of the respondents to produce any evidence. This argument is based on misconception of law and fact. Certainly the claimants approached the court for enhancement of compensation awarded to them by the Collector and the primary onus was upon the claimants. But, at the same time, Union of India supports the award of the Collector and there is an implied onus upon them to show to the satisfaction of the Reference Court that the award should be affirmed by the Court on facts as proved before the Collector and the law settled by the Court. The concept of onus shifts from one party to the other keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. It cannot be stated as an absolute proposition of law that the respondents particularly the Union of India had no onus to discharge and is not expected to lead any evidence before the Reference Court. The general and broad principle of evidence is that a party which affirms has the onus probandi. Another test is which party would fail if no evidence was led on a factual averment. In the present case, the claimants had led sufficient documentary and oral evidence including the witnesses of various government Departments to show that the lands in question were agricultural lands and the categorisation of land was not justified. It was the argument of the Union of India that there were pits and gadhas in the lands and certain persons were running the brick kilns on the acquired lands. According to them this fact was correctly noticed in the award of the Collector. Certainly according to the government witnesses, in the year 1996-97 they had inspected the lands in question of Village Bawana and there was agricultural activity going on. PWR-6, Surender Kumar, proved the certificate Ex.PWR-6/B which showed that the filling of earth was done in five sectors, the area falling in Village Bawana was part of it and the total expenditure in this regard was Rs. 75 lacs. As far as Village Bawana was concerned, nothing was mentioned in the entire project expenditure report up to 31.3.2004 If there were 3 ft. deep gadhas or ditches in the acquired lands and the earth had been spoiled by running of brick kilns, then this certificate would have shown the expenditure incurred by the Corporation for levelling the earth. No suggestion in this regard was made to this witness in his cross-examination. In fact, none of the government witnesses who had appeared as witnesses of the petitioners, were even given a suggestion in their cross-examination that there were brick kilns being run on the acquired lands or there were filling up of gadhas/pits. Thus, as far as the respondents are concerned, their averments that part of the acquired land in the revenue estate of Village Bawana was of inferior quality is a plea supported by no evidence and the Collector made no attempt to justify his findings with reference to any records maintained by the Acquisition Department itself in normal course of its business.