Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

A large tract of land in village Rangpuri hear Palam Airport was notified for acquisition vide notification dated 23.1.1965 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") for planned development of Delhi. Simultaneously, notifications dated 23.1.1965 were also issued for acquisition of land in villages Masoodpur and Mahipalpur. Some plots of land of village Rangpuri were acquired vide Award No. 1958/ 67dated 16.3.1967. The Land Acquisition Collector while assessing the market value of the acquired land covered by the aforesaid Award, divided the said land into three blocks and fixed Rs. 800, Rs. 600 and Rs. 400 per bigha for Block-I, Block-II and Block-III respectively. The remaining land of village Rangpuri not covered by earlier award were acquired by Award No. 146/80-81 dated 30.3.1981. The Land Acquisition Collector while giving the said Award divided the land in to two blocks and fixed Rs. l800 and Rs. 1500 per bigha for Block-A and Block-B, respectively as market value as on 23.1.1965. Since the claimants were not satisfied with the compensation offered by the Land Acquisition Collector, they preferred references to the District Judge, Delhi. Shri Jagdish Chandra, learned Additional District Judge, while dealing with one set of plots of land covered under Award No. 1958, vide judgment dated 23.3.1971 assessed the market value of the land at Rs. 7000 per bigha for Block-A and Rs. 5000 per bigha for Block-B. Another set of reference cases also pertaining to remaining land covered by Award 1958 were dealt with by Shri O.N. Vohra, learned Additional District Judge. After hearing the matter, the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment dated 5.11.1973 rejected the reference cases altogether and upheld the compensation offered by the Land Acquisition Collector. The third set of reference cases pertaining to land covered by Award No, 146 were decided by Shri T.S. Oberoi, learned Additional District Judge vide judgment dated 29.4.1986. The learned Additional District Judge, while deciding these cases relied upon the judgment of Shri Jagdish Chandra, Additional District Judge and fixed me market value of the land acquired at Rs. 7000 and 5000 per bigha, respectively.

In the case of land falling in village Masoodpur, Shri S.R. Goel, learned Additional District Judge fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 18,000 per bigha as on 23.1,1965. For the remaining land, falling in village Masoodpur, Shri Padam Singh, learned Additional District Judge fixed the market value of the land acquired at Rs. 14,340 per bigha with Rs. 10,000 as value of minerals and awarded Rs. 24,340 per bigha as compensation, vide judgment dated 12.4.1990, The Union of India filed an Appeal in the High Court against the judgment of Shri Padam Singh, Additional District Judge which was registered as Regular First Appeal (in short RFA) No. 567/90, The High Court summarily dismissed the said appeal without assigning any reason and the matter ended there, as Union of India did not prefer any appeal challenging the said judgment passed by a Division Bench of the High Court. So far as the compensation awarded to the claimants for acquisition of their lands in village Mahipalpur was concerned, the High Court relied upon a decision of the High Court rendered in R.F.A. No. 567/90, as there was no sale instance available for fixing the market value of land in village Mahipalpur. Consequently, me High Court by judgment and order dated July 17, 1991 allowed R.F.A. No. 122/78 and fixed the market value of the land in village Mahipalpur at Rs. 14,340 per bigha as on 23.1.1965.

Learned counsel for the appellants argued that for the acquired land in the adjoining villages, viz., Masoodpur and Mahipalpur, the claimants were awarded compensation @ Rs, 14,340 per bigha and as such the appellants in the present cases were also entitled to the same amount of compensation In this connection learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Delhi High Court in RFA No. 122/78 Hoshiar Singh etc. v. Union of India decided on 17.7.91 and judgment in RFA No. 567/90 Union of India v. Inderpal Malhotra, decided on 25.10.90 awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 14340 per bigha for acquisition of land in villages Mahipalpur and Masoodpur, respectively. On the strength of these judgments, learned counsel urged that there should be an uniformity in the matter of grant of compensation and the High Court committed a grave error in depriving the appellants of the compensation which they were entitled under the law. Learned counsel also argued that since no appeal or cross objection was filed by Union of India against the judgment in Land Acquisition Case No. 316/82 decided by Shri T.S. Oberoi, Additional District Judge, there exists two sets of rates of compensation, and under such circumstances in order to bring uniformity in the rate of compensation, the appellants may be awarded the same rate of compensation which the claimants in Land Acquisition Case No. 3116/82 have been awarded.

The contention of appellants' counsel that appellants deserved to be awarded the same rate of compensation as it was awarded to the claimants of village Masoodpur and Mahipalpur, in the present facts and circumstances of the case, is not tenable. If we go by the compensation awarded to claimants of adjoining village it would not lead to the correct assessment of market value of the land acquired in the village Rangpuri. For example village 'A' adjoins village 'B', village B adjoins village 'C', village 'G' adjoins village 'D', so on and so forth and in that process the entire Delhi would be covered. Generally mere would be different situation and potentiality of the land situated in two different villages unless it is proved that the situation and potentiality of the land in two different villages are the same. The High Court in the present case has found that the situation and potentiality of land in village Malikpur Khoi are different than that of village Masoodpur, This finding of the High Court is based on correct appreciation of evidence on record and does not call for interference. Another reason why the High Court declined to rely upon the judgments referred to above was that the sale instances relating to village Malikpur Khoi were available for determining the market value of the land acquired in village Malikpur Khoi and as such there was no need to rely upon the judgments which related to acquired land of different villages. Yet another reason why the two judgments referred to by learned counsel for appellant cannot be relied upon for assessing the market value of acquired land in village Malikpur Khoi was that RFA No. 567/90 filed by the Union of India relating to the grant of compensation in respect of land in village Masoodpur was dismissed summarily, as the only challenge in the appeal was in respect of grant of interest to the claimants which matter was already settled by the Supreme Court, in fact, the High Court had adversely commented upon the working of the Land Acquisition Department of Delhi Administration in not challenging the market value of the land acquired in village Masoodpur as assessed by the. Additional District Judge, in Regular First Appeals although the court fee to that effect was paid. In this connection, it is relevant to reproduce the finding of the High Court, which runs as follows:-