-: 1 :- [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] IN THE COURT OF A.K.MENDIRATTA : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE : [ENTITY] [CASE NUMBER] 1. Sh.[ENTITY] R/o Village Nanglirazapur, New Delhi Petitioner Versus 1. [ENTITY] (Through Ministry of Urban Development) Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi 2. [ENTITY] through Vice Chairman, Near I.N.A Vikas Sadan, New Delhi. Respondents Village : Nangli Razapur Date of Notification u/[SECTION] : 23.6.89 Date of Award No.16/92-93 : 19.6.92 Date of Institution : 28.02.98 Date on which Judgment reserved for: 29.08.07 Date on which Judgment Announced : 29.08.07 J U D G M E N T :
Petitioners land situated in village Nangli Razapur, Delhi, details whereof have been mentioned in the statement under [SECTION] of the [ACT] (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was acquired by the government for planned development of Delhi (i.e. channelization of river Yamuna) vide award no. 16/92-
93. Notification under [SECTION] followed by [SECTION] & [SECTION] of .
Contd
[ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] the [ACT] were issued on 23.6.89 and 22.6.90 for land measuring about 2009 bighas 10 biswas.
LAC observed that since the entire area is being irrigated by Yamuna river water there would be no justification to classify the land into blocks as the land is similar in quality. He further observed that no evidence had been led by any claimant which could be considered as guiding factor for assessing the fair market value of land. LAC further relied upon policy of Delhi Administration dated 03.5.90 whereby minimum price for the agricultural land (other than situated in river bed between forward bunds) was fixed at Rs.4.65 lacs per acre w.e.f. 27.4.90 and the minimum price of the agricultural land situated in river bed between the forward bund was fixed @ Rs.1.5 lacs per acre. It was also observed in the policy that for the land notified in previous years u/[SECTION], the minimum price would be arrived at by discounting 1990 price by 15% per annum. On the basis of aforesaid policy LAC assessed the market value of the land @ Rs.1,31,251/- per acre for Rs.27,334/- per bigha after discounting @ 15% per annum on the minimum price of Rs. 1.5 lacs per acre.
2. Dis-satisfied by the land rates fixed by the LAC, petitioner preferred a reference petition under [SECTION] of the Act before the LAC who in turn forwarded the same to this reference .
Contd
[ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] court for fixing the just and fair market value of the acquired land.
The case of the petitioner is that the LAC erred in assessing the market value of the land as the prevailing market rate was not less than Rs. 5,000/- per square yard. The land is stated to be near Nizammudin Railway Station and approachable to all the places of Delhi, as the transportation and communication facilities were available. It was also submitted that adequate compensation was not provided for the crops, trees, tube wells etc. Compensation was accordingly claimed @ Rs. 10,000/- per square yard alongwith other benefits.
It may be appropriate to mention at this stage that during the pendency of proceedings an application u/[SECTION] [ACT] was filed on behalf of petitioner for calling a revised statement as some of the khasra's were not included in statement u/[SECTION], an account of stay orders passed by Hon'ble High Court in Sada Ram & Ors. Vs. [ENTITY] bearing no. 2814/92. The said writ petition is stated to have been decided on 20.11.03 and possession of the khasra nos. is stated to have been taken over on 20.2.04. Accordingly a revised statement u/[SECTION] was filed on behalf of the LAC.
3. Respondent [ENTITY] took a stand in the written statement that [ACT] is applicable to the acquired .
Contd
[ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] land and land rates were correctly fixed by the LAC after considering all the relevant factors. It was further submitted that the land was not surrounded by any developed or undeveloped colonies and could be only used for agricultural purpose.
4. On the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed vide order dated 20.01.03 :-
ISSUES
1. What was the market value of the land in question at the time of issuance of notification u/[SECTION] of the [ACT] ?
2. To what amount of enhancement in compensation, the petitioner is entitled to?
3. Relief.
An additional issue was further framed vide order dated 28.03.06 as possession of some additional khasras was stated to have been taken over consequent upon vacation of stay by the Hon'ble High Court and they were included in revised statement u/[SECTION] of the Act.
Additional Issue 1A. Whether the petitioner is entitled to amount u/[SECTION] of the [ACT] with respect to Khasra nos. of which the possession has been taken subsequently, for the period during which the proceedings for the acquisition of land were held up on account of any stay or injunction ? OPP
5. Petitioner in support of his case examined PW-1 [ENTITY], UDC (DDA), PW-2 Sh.[ENTITY], UDC (DDA), .
Contd
[ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] PW-3 Sh.[ENTITY], Manager, Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd., PW-5 Sh.[ENTITY], petitioner, PW-6 Sh.[ENTITY], [ENTITY], PW-7 Sh.[ENTITY], Record Keeper.
PW-1 Shri [ENTITY], UDC, DDA proved letter dated 12.8.99 (Ex. PW-1/A) whereby 13.19 hectares of land was allotted for K V Sub Station at Maharani Bagh by DDA @ Rs. 44 Lacs per acre and 2 % ground rent.
PW-2 Shri [ENTITY], UDC, DDA proved letter dated 27.10.99 (Ex. PW-2/A) whereby 10.32 acres of land in village Bhelolpur was allotted for Development of ISBT at [ENTITY] by DDA @ Rs. 33.80 Lacs per acre with annual ground rent of 2 % per annum.
PW-3 Sh.[ENTITY], Manager, Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd. proved agreement dated 02.12.99 entered between Noida Toll Bridge and [ENTITY] regarding part of land of K.No. 520 of village [ENTITY] as Ex. PW-3/1. The agreement dated 06.12.99 between Noida Toll Bridge Co. and Sh.[ENTITY] was proved as Ex. PW-3/2 and the site plan and receipt executed between the parties was proved as Ex. PW-3/3 & PW-3/4.
During cross examination he deposed that the additional compensation in respect of the land involved in the agreements was paid for compensation of rehabilitation to the effected families.
PW-5 Sh.[ENTITY], petitioner led his evidence by way of affidavit and averments made in the reference were reiterated on oath. He stated that some of the acquired land had been earmarked to construct a cricket ground of international level.
Contd
[ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] He further deposed that the ISBT [ENTITY] was at distance of half kilometer, Pragati Maidan at two kilometers and Connaught Place at four kilometers from the acquired land. Also Akshar Dham Temple was stated to have come up on similar situated land of village Chilla in vicinity. Acquired land in village [ENTITY] and Behlolpur in vicinity was stated to have been sold by DDA without making any improvement.
PW-6 Sh.[ENTITY], [ENTITY] deposed that village Nangli Razapur is surrounded on North by Samastpur Jagir, on West by Nizam Pur & Behlolpur, on South by Village [ENTITY]. He further stated that there is no entry on the eastern side of village Nangli. He also stated that land of village [ENTITY] and Nangli Razapur are similarly situated. Further Mayur Vihar was stated to be situated on the land of village Samastpur Jagir. Friends Colony and Maharani Bangh were stated to be situated within a radius of one kilometer from the village. Nizamuddin village was stated to be touching boundary of village Nangli Razapur. During cross- examination, he stated that Mayur Vihar is at distance of five kilometers from ITO. He admitted that village Nangli Razapur and [ENTITY] are on the bank of river Yamuna. He could not specify the area of the acquired land which remains covered under water. He also stated that village Nangli Razapur is on one side of river Yamuna and on the eastern side of the village, Mayur Vihar was located.
PW-7 Sh.[ENTITY], Record Keeper proved notification under [SECTION] of the [ACT] dated 23/06/89 and declaration under [SECTION] as Ex. PW7/1. The map referred in the notification was stated to be not available. Certified copy of gazette notification dated 25/01/95 was proved as Ex. PW7/2.
Contd
[ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY]
6. Petitioner also tendered in evidence awards pertaining to village Jaitpur and judgments pertaining to assessment of land in village [ENTITY]. Reliance was also placed on sale deed dated 17.3.88 pertaining to village [ENTITY]. The same are detailed hereinafter.
Ex. P1 is certified copy of judgment passed in [CASE NUMBER] entitled Dhoom Singh & Anr. Vs. [ENTITY] decided by Sh.[ENTITY], the then Additional District Judge, Delhi, whereby land acquired vide Award no. 99/80-81 in village [ENTITY] involving date of notification u/[SECTION] on 15.6.79 was assessed @ Rs.22000/- per bigha.
Ex. P2 is certified copy of judgment passed in [CASE NUMBER] entitled Dhoom Singh & Anr. Vs. [ENTITY], whereby the rate of land acquired vide Award no. 99/80-81 in village [ENTITY] was enhanced to Rs.2,240/- per sq. yard by Hon'ble High Court.
Ex. P3 is copy of order passed by Hon'ble High Court in [CASE NUMBER]. The aforesaid order pertains to some directions passed with respect to land acquired for establishment of 4 KW sub station on land measuring 15.937 acres allotted on payment of Rs. 14,69,90,116/- in village Bhalolpur Khadar. The counsel has pointed out that the aforesaid order has been relied upon to indicate the price at which the land had been allotted to DVB in adjacent village.
Ex. P4 is the copy of Award no. 3/91-92 pertaining to village Jaitpur whereby land notified u/[SECTION] on 10.10.90 was assessed @ Rs.4.65 lacs per acre.
Ex. P5 is the copy of Award no. 6/91-92 pertaining to village Jaitpur whereby land notified u/[SECTION] on 30.5.90 was assessed .
Contd
[ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] @ Rs.4.65 lacs per acre.
Ex.P6 is copy of Award no. 220/86-87 village [ENTITY] whereby land notified u/[SECTION] on 13.11.59 was assessed @ Rs.26000/- per bigha.
Mark A is the copy of agreement dated 02.12.99 executed by Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd. with Sh.[ENTITY] in respect of 1325 sq.yard of land in Khasra no. 520. The same was subsequently proved as Ex. PW-3/1.
Mark B & C are the photocopies of the certified copies of notification u/[SECTION] declaration u/[SECTION] of the Act.
Mark D is photocopy of notification u/[SECTION] of [ACT]. Mark E & F is map depicting topography of Delhi, Haryana and UP issued by Surveyor General of India & receipt of purchase of map.
Mark G is schedule of rates of land for the period 01.4.88 to 01.4.90 for DDA residential colonies.
Ex. X1 is photocopy of certified copy of statement of Sh.[ENTITY], NT, Delhi Transco Ltd. recorded as PW-1 in [PRECEDENT] entitled Bed Ram Vs. [ENTITY] and exhibits proved therein are Ex. PW-1/1 to PW-1/5. The same is briefly reproduced as under :-
PW-1 Sh.[ENTITY], Naib Tehsildar, Delhi Transco Ltd. proved the copy of allotment letter dated 8.6.99 (Ex.PW1/1) whereby plot of land measuring 13.19 hectares was allotted for purpose of 400/200 KV Station at Maharani Bagh @ Rs. 20 Lacs .
Contd
[ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] per acre + 120% = 44 lacs and 2 % ground rent. He further stated that payment amounting to Rs. 14,69,90,116/- had been made to DDA and copy of the covering letter dated 17.5.00 was proved as Ex.PW1/2. Letter dated 9.1.02 for allotment of additional land measuring 2.81 hectares for the same purpose for consideration of Rs. 3,36,06,173/- was proved as Ex.PW-1/3 and the covering letter dated 13.2.02 for making the payment was proved as Ex.PW-1/4. He further deposed that DDA handed over possession of land measuring 15.973 hectares to DVB on 25.6.02 and copy of confirmation of possession letter dated 26.6.02 was proved as Ex.PW-1/5.
During cross examination he deposed that he could not specify the khasra numbers with respect to the alloted land and had no record of receipt of cheques referred to Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/4. The alloted land was stated to be in village [ENTITY], New Delhi. He further stated that he could not comment in case DDA allots only the developed land.
Ex. X2 is photocopy of certified copy of statement of Sh.[ENTITY], UDC, ISBT recorded as PW-2 in [PRECEDENT] entitled Bed Ram Vs. [ENTITY] and copy of allotment letter for development of ISBT at [ENTITY] was proved as Ex. PW-2/1. The same is briefly reproduced as under :-
PW-2 Sh.[ENTITY], UDC (From office of GM, ISBT) deposed that transport department, Delhi government had been alloted 10.32 acres of land by DDA for sum of Rs.3,48,81,600/- and 2 % annual premium as ground rent. Copy of allotment letter dated 27.11.99 was proved as Ex.PW2/1. The land was stated to be located in village [ENTITY] and had been alloted for extention of ISBT [ENTITY].
During cross examination he submitted that he could not say whether DDA had alloted developed land and had charged the cost of the developed land.
Contd
[ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] Ex. X3 is photocopy of certified copy of statement of Sh.[ENTITY], recorded as PW-3 in [PRECEDENT] entitled Bed Ram Vs. [ENTITY] and he proved sale deed dated 17.3.88 as Ex. PW- 3/1. The same is briefly reproduced as under :-
PW-3 Sh.[ENTITY], is the Purchaser of land involved in sale deed dated 17.3.88 (Ex.PW3/1) and he deposed that 1 bigha 1 biswas of land in village [ENTITY] was purchased vide aforesaid sale deed from [ENTITY] for total consideration of Rs.
2,07,500/-.
During cross examination he deposed that the payment had been made by cheque. He denied the suggestion that the sale deed had been executed to create evidence as they had the information that the land in village was likely to be acquired.
Ex. X4 is photocopy of certified copy of statement of Sh.[ENTITY], Asstt., DDA recorded as PW-4 in [PRECEDENT] entitled Bed Ram Vs. [ENTITY] and he proved letter dated 19.1.00 for allotment of Akshardham Temple as Ex. PW-4/1. The same is briefly reproduced as under :-
PW-4 Sh.[ENTITY], Asstt. DDA deposed that Akshardham Mandir was alloted 23.5 hectares of land in village Chilla @ Rs. 77 Lacs per acre for 12 hectares and Rs. 84.70 Lacs per acre for 5.5 hectares and Rs. 21,17,500/- per acre for 6 hectares on lease hold basis. Further 93.07 lacs was realized on account of ground rent per annum. He further stated that at the site the construction work of temple was going on. The allotment letter dated 19.1.00 regarding 12 hectares of land was proved as Ex.PW-4/1.
During cross examination he deposed that when the allotment was made in the year 2000-02 the surrounding area was well developed. He could not reveal as to when the land was .
Contd
[ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] acquired and at what rates. He further stated that DDA had charged the price prevailing in the area in 2000-02.
Ex. X6 is photocopy of certified copy of statement of Sh[ENTITY], [ENTITY] recorded as PW-6 in [PRECEDENT] entitled Bed Ram Vs. [ENTITY] and exhibits proved therein are Ex. PW-A to C. The same is briefly reproduced as under :-
PW-6 Sh[ENTITY], [ENTITY] village [ENTITY] deposed that on land of village [ENTITY] two petrol pumps existed on eastern side and opposite to same is [ENTITY] ISBT. The same is stated to have been rightly reflected in [ENTITY] Ex.PW-B in field no. 31/1. Maharani Bagh, New Friends Colony and Kalinidi colony were stated to be situated on the land in village [ENTITY]. The petrol pump was stated to be about 1 km from Kalindi Colony, Maharani Bagh and New Friends colony. On the southern side of village, Nizamudin bridge was stated to run from [ENTITY] bus stand to Mayur Vihar crossing.
During cross examination he stated that village Behlolpur and [ENTITY] are adjoining and river Yamuna is on eastern side of Kalindi Colony.
Ex. X8 is photocopy of certified copy of statement of Sh[ENTITY], [ENTITY] recorded as PW-8 in [CASE NUMBER] entitled [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] and proved photocopy of certified copy of Award no. 220/86-87 as Ex. PW-8/1.
7. Respondent [ENTITY] in support of their case tendered in evidence three sale deeds alongwith copy of Award in question. The same were exhibited as Ex. R1 to R4.
Contd
[ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] Ex. R1 is photocopy of certified copy of sale deed dated 31.3.84 executed by Smt. [ENTITY] in favour of Sh.[ENTITY] in respect of land measuring 5 bigha 12 biswas in K.no. 653 & 1 bigha 13 biswas out of K.No. 655 in village [ENTITY] for consideration of Rs.14,000/-.
Ex. R2 is photocopy of certified copy of sale deed dated 09.9.83 executed by Smt. [ENTITY] in favour of Sh.[ENTITY] in respect of land measuring 1 bigha in [CASE NUMBER] in village [ENTITY] for consideration of Rs.2,000/-.
Ex. R3 is certified copy of sale deed dated 31.1.89 executed by Sh.[ENTITY] & Ors. in favour of Sh.[ENTITY] in respect of land measuring 31 bigha 3 biswas in village Nanglirazapur for consideration of Rs.1,27,950/-.
Ex. R4 is copy of Award in question.
8. After evidence of respondent was closed, petitioner led evidence of [ENTITY] in rebuttal by way of affidavit with reference to land involved in sale deed dated 31.3.89 of village Nangli Razapur (Ex.R3). He stated that his wife Smt. [ENTITY] owned part of acquired land. He further stated that a dispute regarding field No. 18 is pending between the owners and unauthorized occupants since 1958 and the original owner Shri [ENTITY] (deceased) had filed an eviction petition against Shri [ENTITY] (deceased) under [SECTION] of [ACT] and the same is still pending in the Court of SDM/RA, Saket. A litigation with .
Contd
[ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] regard to field No. 19 was also stated to be pending in the civil court of Shri [ENTITY], Civil Judge.
9. I have heard Counsel for the petitioner, Counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
Principles for assessing value of land The principles for determining the fair and reasonable value of land are well settled. The object of the inquiry in a reference remains to bring on record the price which the land under acquisition was capable of fetching in open market on the date of notification. The relative situation of acquired land, the nature of land, its suitability, nature of use to which the land can be put on date of notification and any other distinctive features which the land possesses along with sale transactions of land covered with the same notification are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is equally relevant to consider neighborhood land as are possessed of similar potentiality and some guess work may be involved in the assessment. The acid test would be whether a hypothetical willing vendor would offer the lands and a willing purchaser in normal human conduct would be willing to buy as a prudent man in normal market 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], but not an anxious buyer dealing at arm's length with throw-away price, nor .
Contd
[ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] facade of sale or fictitious sales brought about in quick succession or otherwise to inflate the market value. The court is required to sit in the armchair of a bona fide willing and prudent purchaser in the open market and seek and answer to the question whether in the conditions prevailing in the market he would offer the same market value as the Court has proposed. Reference in this regard may also be made to Special Dy. Collector [PRECEDENT].
Now my issue wise findings are as under:-
ISSUE NO. 1 :- Counsel for petitioner in order to point out the potentiality of land urged that village Nanglirazapur had been urbanized and as such [ACT] ceased to apply to the entire village. The value of land in village Nanglirazapur is claimed to be comparable or even better than land in adjoining village [ENTITY], falling in the river bed. Counsel further submitted that the potentiality of the land may also be considered in the light of prime location and development in and around the village. Reference was also made to Award No. 220/86- 87 involving date of notification u/[SECTION] on 13.11.59 whereby the land in village kilokari had been acquired for planned development of Delhi and assessed at the rate of Rs.26,000/- per bigha. It was also pointed out that the land of village kilokari had been allotted for development of New Friends Colony, Kalindi colony and .
Contd
[ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] Maharani Bagh and the acquired land is situated adjacent to Nizamudin Bridge at a distance of about half kilometer from outer Ring Road and about same distance from Akshardham Temple. Reliance was also placed upon [ENTITY] for the year 1985- 89 of village Behlolpur to show the existence of a Petrol pump and service station nearby. Reference was further made to the fact that the land is surrounded by communicable roads in the vicinity and land was surrounded by Mayur Vihar on the other side of bund. Attention was also drawn to the plans developed by DDA for development of the area in vicinity for the forthcoming Common Wealth games in 2010. As such, the acquired land was claimed to have a great potentiality despite being adjacent to bank of river Yamuna.
On the other hand counsel for respondent/ [ENTITY] pointed out to the observations of LAC whereby the land under acquisition is stated to be situated in forward bund in the river bed. It was urged that the sale deeds executed in village [ENTITY] are not applicable as the acquired land is situated in forward bund area susceptible to floods.
10. At this stage itself it may be relevant to mention that I have decided references pertaining to award no.14/92-93 pertaining to village [ENTITY] whereby land had been acquired for channelization of river Yamuna vide notification of the .
Contd
[ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] same dated i.e 23.6.89. A brief reference to the observations made in [PRECEDENT] entitled Bed Ram Vs. [ENTITY] pertaining to said award may be relevant as the land acquired in village [ENTITY] largely falls on the western bank of river Yamuna nearing ring road and the land involved in the present award largely falls on the eastern bank of river Yamuna on the opposite side which ultimately touches the main road leading to the area of Mayur Vihar.
Perusal of various awards pending before this court and as submitted by counsel for [ENTITY], notifications u/[SECTION] of [ACT] dated 23.6.89 appear to have been issued for acquisition of land for a public purpose namely channelization of river Yamuna for nine villages namely:-
1 [ENTITY]
2. Khizrabad
3. [ENTITY]
4. [ENTITY]
5. [ENTITY]
6. [ENTITY]
7. [ENTITY]
8. [ENTITY]
9. [ENTITY] As per a notification dated 23.6.89 placed on record about 3500 Hectors of land starting from a point 1 km. upstream, Wazirabad Barrage road till it outs the boundary of Union Territory was proposed to be acquired for channelization of river Yamuna. The purpose of the project itself suggests the land in the river bed adjacent to the existing stream of water was to be acquired. The .
Contd
[ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] acquired land being in river bed on forward bund as such can be safely inferred to be covered during some parts of the year with water and may be cultivable for other parts of the year. No evidence has been led by the petitioners to show that the land was not situated in the forward bund area. Considering the situation of the land in the river bed it may not be capable of being utilized as a normal agricultural land or building site despite the village being urbanized and cannot be compared with land other than situated in river bed in village [ENTITY]. The development may have taken place in and around village [ENTITY] but the same cannot change the handicaps of land situated in a forward bund area owing to its typical location and likelihood of flooding during the monsoons. I may also observe that a mere construction of an isolated boundary wall or a solitary temple without indicating the nature of construction cannot lead to an inference that the land could be used as a building site or could be compared to land falling outside the forward bund area. The value of land as such needs to be assessed by this Court considering the aforesaid factors .
11. The aforesaid observations may be further considered in the light of the spot inspection conducted by this court to appreciate the location of the acquired land. The observations in the spot inspection report may be beneficially reproduced for purpose of assessing the potentiality and location of acquired land.
Contd
[ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] The spot inspection has been conducted in terms of order dated 13.11.06 in the presence of officials from DDA (Sh.[ENTITY], Director L.M), Sh.[ENTITY] (LAC South), Sh.[ENTITY] (D.C. South), Sh. [ENTITY] (Ex. Engineer, Irrigation & Flood Control Department) who are accompanied with other team of officials from respective departments. Counsel for the petitioners as well as respondents are also present.
The officials led to embankment of River Yamuna in village Nanglirazapur via Marginal Bund Road through 'Pantoon Road'. A rough sketch (i.e. Site plan by approximation) prepared by officials of DDA to give a broad idea of the location of villages has been handed over. The same is Annexure 1 and clearly depicts the location of villages [ENTITY], Nangli Razapur, [ENTITY], Chakchilla, Khizrabad, Jogabai, [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY].
A copy of site plan indicating the khasra no's of village Nanglirazapur has been handed over by officials of LAC South. The officials explained at site that some of the Khasra no's which are sub-merged or likely to be sub-merged and are adjacent to water stream had been de-notified while the others had been acquired. The same are reflected in different shades in the site plan (Annexure II). The officials informed that the acquired land extended upto 500 meters and may be more from the stream of water which was flowing currently. The land on both sides at the 'site spot' appeared to be under cultivation. However, it is pertinent to note that officials from Irrigation and Flood Control Department informed that as and when the water level in river Yamuna crosses a mark of 204.83, the land gets covered with water, depending an amount of discharge of water in the river. It was also pointed out that owing to aforesaid reasons no development has been permitted from 'Marginal Bund Road' till embankment of River Yamuna (As depicted in Annexure -I). It was observed that there was no .
Contd
[ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] substantial development except that land appears to be utilized near the site for agricultural purpose.
Thereafter the officials led to show the approximate location of land of village [ENTITY], Behlolpur and Khizrabad from Ring Road and D.N.D.Road. The officials showed that no activity / development on the land near to the embankment could be undertaken except for agricultural activity. The spot inspection commenced at about 2.40 p.m and has been completed at about 4.45 p.m. ([ENTITY]) ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE : [ENTITY] 22.11.06"
12. The spot inspection conducted as referred to above alongwith the rough site plans prepared by DDA and location of acquired land reveals that the area of the acquired land in village Nanglirazapur largely falls on the eastern bank of river Yamuna and extends towards the bund road falling on the Mayur Vihar side. The land falls in the river bed on the right hand side of the flyover (commonly known as Nizammuddin Bridge) connecting the Ring road to the crossing near Akshardham Temple. The land on the western bank of river Yamuna is mainly touching the outer ring road while on the Eastern side the embankment mainly touches the area of Mayur Vihar. It may also be noticed that the land on the embankment of river Yamuna has been left open till the 'main bund' for overflowing of the water depending upon the discharge of water in river Yamuna. No construction activity .
Contd
[ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] appears to have been undertaken since the area is low lying. The only construction on the bank of river Yamuna at some distance is of Akshardham Temple in village Chilla land for which appears to have been lately alloted in the year 2000 and is situated on the other side of Nizamudin Bridge.
I am of the view that the development commenced in 2000 at the site of Akshardham Temple or the plans for Common Wealth Games in 2006-07 may not be of much value to assess the value of land in 1989 when the notification u/[SECTION] was issued as no such activity was even contemplated at aforesaid time. Even the plans for Common Wealth Games referred to by the counsel do not propose any building activity as the land falls in the river bed. From the aforesaid facts detailed above, the land under consideration appears to be located in the heart of Delhi but with a handicap of being located in the river bed and capable of being used only as agricultural land, except for the period for which the land may be covered with water on excess discharge of water in river Yamuna.
13. The counsel for petitioner has next contended that the claimant deserves to be awarded the same rate of compensation as awarded to the claimants in village Khizrabad and [ENTITY] in vicinity wherein the land was acquired for same purpose vide notification u/[SECTION] on 23.06.89. To my mind, the aforesaid .
Contd
[ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] contention is to be considered with a safeguard that generally there would be different situation and potentiality of the land situated in two different villages in unless it is proved that situation and potentiality of the land in two different villages are the same. The valuation as such, depends upon appreciation of evidence in each case and the assessment of value of land in all the 9 villages cannot be randomly followed at the same rate on account of commonness of purpose of acquisition. The same may also be reflected by the sale deeds executed in different villages at the relevant time. It may be appropriate to point out that the value of land in villages may also decrease as the distance of land increases from the developed area. It is also required to be considered that the land on the embankment nearing the developed area may command an higher value while the land which substantively falls in a low lying area and may not be connected with the roads falling in the adjacent village may command a lesser value. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the opinion that the location, potentiality, nature of land and prevailing prices in each village may have to ascertained though the land may have been notified for a common purpose and notification u/[SECTION] of the [ACT] may be of the same date for nine villages. As such, common price for all the villages cannot be randomly followed. I find support for inferring the same from judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Kanwar Singh Vs. [ENTITY] (1998) 8 SCC 136. With the aforesaid observations, .
Contd
[ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] I now proceed to assess the market value of the land.
14. Now I proceed to consider the sale deeds and Awards relied by the petitioner and the respondents.
Counsel for the petitioner next urged that the nature of land involved in Award No.3/91-92 village Jaitpur notified u/[SECTION] on 10.10.90 was Salabi land and has been assessed @ Rs. 4.65 lacs per acre. It was further submitted that village Nanglirazapur is at far times advantageous location as it is located near village [ENTITY] and posh localities like Maharani Bagh, New Friends Colony, Jamia Milia University while village Jaitpur is located at the far end of Delhi bordering Faridabad.
Counsel further referred to Ex.P1 i.e judgment passed in [CASE NUMBER] entitled Dhoom Singh & Anr. Vs. [ENTITY] decided by Sh.[ENTITY], the then Additional district Judge, Delhi, whereby the land acquired vide award no. 99/80-81 of village [ENTITY] involving date of notification u/[SECTION] on 15.6.79 was assessed @ Rs. 22,000/- per bigha (for low leveled land) and Rs. 23,000/- per bigha (leveled land). The rate of land was further enhanced by Hon'ble High Court in [CASE NUMBER] entitled Dhoom Singh & Anrs. Vs. [ENTITY] to Rs. 2,240/- per sq. yard. It was urged that the land in village [ENTITY] had also been acquired for construction of link channel under the New [ENTITY] Barrage Project and the purpose .
Contd
[ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] of acquisition for channelization is also similar in the present award. It was also pointed out that the nature of land in village Nangli Razapur is better than that acquired in village [ENTITY] vide notification of same date as the land therein acquired was described as 'Sailab' while the land in village Nangli Razapur was described as 'Khadar' which is better suited for cultivation.
On the other hand counsel for respondent pointed out that the nature of land has been distinguished by the Ld. LAC in Award No. 3/91-92 vilage Jaitpur on page 3 of the award as the land had been observed to be in a better advantageous position being Apbasi ( i.e irrigated land ) and was not governed by provisions of [ACT]. Similarly the rate of land in village [ENTITY] was stated to be not applicable as rate of land in village [ENTITY] adjacent to the acquired land had been relied upon by the petitioner. Counsel also referred to sale deeds Ex. R-1 to R-3 executed in village [ENTITY] and Nangli Razapur to claim that price of land was much below than claimed by the petitioner.
15. I am of the view that it has not been proved on record in case the potentiality and quality of land in village [ENTITY] and Jaitpur is the same as that of village Nanglirazapur or the land acquired in aforesaid villages, had been located in forward bund in river bed. In view of above, the .
Contd
[ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] assessment of land rate in aforesaid villages cannot be relied upon to assess the market value of land in village Nanglirazapur. It may also be mentioned that the Hon'ble High Court assessed the market value of the land in village [ENTITY] considering the fact that the land in aforesaid village had been urbanized and was adjacent to village Bahapur wherein the rate of land notified u/[SECTION] on 30.6.78 was assessed at Rs. 2000/- per bigha. The said reasoning was also adopted by this court for assessment of value of land in village [ENTITY] acquired vide Award no. 14/92-93 involving the same date of notification u/[SECTION]. There appears to be no reason to adopt the rates of aforesaid villages [ENTITY] and Jaitpur in the present reference.
16. Counsel next referred to Ex.P3 i.e the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in [CASE NUMBER] wherein 15.937 hectares of land had been acquired for construction of sub station in village Behlolpur and allotted for consideration of Rs.14,69,90,116/-. The prevailing rate of land as such is stated to be in between Rs.45-50 lakhs per acre.
The Counsel for petitioner also referred to allotment of land for ISBT at [ENTITY] vide allotment letter Ex.PW2/A and testimony of PW-2 recorded in [PRECEDENT] pertaining to Award no. 14/92-93 village [ENTITY] (the said statement has been exhibited as Ex. X2 in present reference). Land measuring 10.32 .
Contd
[ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] acres was stated to have been alloted therein by DDA for sum of Rs. 3,48,81,600/- vide letter dated 27.10.99.
Reference was further been made to allotment of land for Akshardham Mandir as per allotment letter dated 19.1.00 (Ex.PW4/1) and testimony of PW-4 recorded in [PRECEDENT] was relied in this regard (the same has been exhibited as Ex. X4 in the present reference). The assessment of land in present case is stated to be far below market rates in comparison to the land rates prevailing in vicinity which was being charged by DDA.
The aforesaid letters pertain to allotment and the rates of land charged in the year 1999, 2000 and 2002. Nothing has come on record to show that the land alloted to aforesaid organizations was undeveloped. The rate at which the land involved in village [ENTITY] or [ENTITY] alloted in aforesaid cases was acquired has also not been brought on record. It is a known fact that DDA allots the land after development and the rates at which the allotment is made also takes into consideration the profit and period for which the land remains locked prior to allotment. The other main factors which govern the rates for allotment are its location and potentiality. The land alloted for temple Akhsardham is stated to be well developed in surrounding area. The fact which cannot be ignored is that the land alloted to the aforesaid organizations did not suffer from the .
Contd
[ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] handicap of being situated in forward bund in the river bed. In view of above, the land involved in the present award and in aforesaid cases, in no manner can be inferred to be analogous or comparative to assess the value of land. Mere vicinity or high prevailing prices in the developed areas cannot come to the rescue of the petitioners for claiming compensation at same rates due to peculiar situation of the land in present award.
17. The counsel next referred to Ex. PW-3/1 and PW-3/2 i.e agreements entered by Sh.[ENTITY] and Sh.[ENTITY] with M/s Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd. whereby an additional amount was paid to Sh.[ENTITY] for 1325 sq.yd of land situated in [CASE NUMBER] and and Sh.[ENTITY] for 122 sq.yd of land in [CASE NUMBER]. In my opinion the aforesaid agreements entered in the year 1999 in no manner reflect the prevalent value of land as the amount appears to have been paid for certain structures and loss of income to the concerned parties to avoid the process of cumbersome litigation.
18. Mr. [ENTITY] also relied upon notification of rates of land notified by Land & Building Department for purpose of recovery of unearned increase in different areas of Delhi and New Delhi. To my mind rates referred therein are for a limited purpose and in no way can be construed as statutory rules and .
Contd
[ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] regulations on the subject for determination of the market value of the land. Even the Government did not consider the same while assessing the minimum value of acquired land vide different notifications.
19. Now I proceed to consider the sale deeds pertaining to village [ENTITY] relied by the parties for purpose of determination of the price of land on the date of notification u/s
4. The sale deed relied upon by the petitioner pertaining to village [ENTITY] is represented below in chart for proper appreciation of the value of land.
S.No. Exhibit Date Village Land Consideration Stamp Total Land Cost of SD involved of sale deed Duty Cost Per bigha
1. Ex.PW3/1 17.3.8 [ENTITY] 1 Big. 2,07,500/- 16,600/- 2,24,100/- 2,12,857/-
1 Bis.
20. The sale deeds relied upon by the respondent are further represented below :-
S.No. Exhibit Date Village Land Consideration Stamp Total Land Cost of SD involved of sale deed Duty Cost Per bigha
1. Ex.R1 31.3.84 [ENTITY] 5 Big. 14,000/- 1,120/-
12 Bis.
2. Ex.R2 09.9.83 [ENTITY] 1Big. 2,000/- 160/- 2,160/-
3. Ex.R3 31.1.89 Nanglirazapur 31 Big. 1,27,950/- 10,240/- 4,436/-
3 Bis.
Contd
[ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY]
21. The counsel for petitioner vehemently urged that even way back vide award no. 222/86-87, the rate of land in village [ENTITY] involving date of notification u/[SECTION] on 13.11.59 had been assessed @ Rs. 26,000/- per bigha and as such the sale deeds executed in the year 1983, 1984 and 1989 i.e Ex.R1 to R3 relied by the respondents do not reflect the actual market price and have been under valued to save the stamp duty. It was further submitted that no appreciation for the prices of land had been granted by LAC for a period of about 30 years over the value of land assessed vide award no. 222/86-87 in the land pertaining to village [ENTITY] notified u/[SECTION] on the same date.
Counsel further referred to Ex.PW3/1 i.e sale deed dated 17.3.88 pertaining to village [ENTITY] whereby one bigha one biswas of land was sold for consideration of Rs. 2,07,500/-. The rate of land is stated to be much more in case the stamp duty of Rs. 16,600/- was further included therein. The rate of land on aforesaid basis in the year 1988 is claimed to be at Rs.2,12,857/- per bigha. It was urged that further appreciation @ 12% be awarded till 23.6.89 to assess the value of land on the date of notification u/[SECTION]. Counsel also referred to testimony of PW-3 who was the purchaser of land involved in aforesaid sale deed. It was contended by the counsel that no dent could be created by the respondent in the testimony of aforesaid witness.
Contd
[ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] On the other hand Counsel for respondent ([ENTITY]) submitted that LAC has duly taken note of various sale deeds executed during the year 1985 to 1989 in [CASE NUMBER] pertaining to village [ENTITY] and the average price of land was merely Rs.18,736/- per bigha. He further assailed the sale deed Ex PW 3/1 on the ground that Ex.R1 to R3 relied upon by the respondents which were executed during the period 1985 to 87 reflect that the value of land was far below then the rates claimed by the petitioners. The said price was also stated to be applicable only to the land which was not included in the river bed.
22. The sale deeds relied by the respondent in references pertaining to Award No. 14/92-93, vill. [ENTITY] involving same date of notification and not referred in this case indicated a maximum price of Rs. 43,200/- per bigha. Cl. for the respdt. submitted that nothing has been brought on record to show that the price of a land which was situated in forward bund (i.e.less advantageous location) could have commanded a higher price or the prices had increased multi fold over a period of one year to tune of Rs. 2,07,500/- per bigha as per Ex.PW3/1 relied by the petitioner, when compared to the land situated outside the forward bund area. Counsel for the respondent further referred to AIR 1997 SC 3882 Satpal & Ors. Vs. [ENTITY] wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court endorsed the view that in case the transaction relied by the claimants show a rise in price of 100% in a short period which is .
Contd
[ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] not the prevailing trend in the area, where acquired land is situated, the sale transactions could be rejected.
Faced with aforesaid proposition one is required to look into the reliability of sale deeds filed by the respondent viz a viz the policy of Government of Delhi dated 3.5.90 whereby minimum price of agricultural land was fixed at Rs. 4.65 per acres w.e.f. 27.4.90 for the land other than situated in the forward bund in the river bed. One also needs to keep in view the land rates assessed for village [ENTITY] in an earlier award No. 220/86-87 involving the date of notification u/[SECTION] on 13.11.59, whereby the rate of land is stated to have been assessed @ Rs. 26,000/- per bigha.
The government itself has fixed the minimum value of agricultural land as per policy dated 3.5.90 @ Rs. 4.65 lacs per acre or Rs. 96,875/- per bigha w.e.f. 27.4.90 considering the increase in value of land over a period of years. It is unlikely that the prices of the land would have remained stagnant or only marginally increased for a period of about 25 years as the rate of land in village [ENTITY] had been assessed @ Rs.26,000/- per bigha in the year 1959. The rate of land in village [ENTITY] in 1989 as such would have been much more than the sale deeds (Ex.R1 & R2) relied by the respondent, even if the appreciation would have been @ 10% p.a. from 1959. In view of above, R1 & R2 appear to be under valued to save the stamp duty and do not reflect the correct value of land situated outside the forward bund.
Contd
[ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] Even the R3 i.e. sale deed dated 31.01.89 with respect to sale of 31 bigha 3 biswas of land in village Nangli Razapur for consideration of Rs.1,27,950/- appears to be grossly under valued and has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the land under consideration was disputed since 1950 and a case with respect to same was pending before the Revenue Assistant/SDM. Evidence of PW8 Shri [ENTITY] to the extent that the land involved in sale deed was disputed has remained uncontroverted on record. If the aforesaid rates are believed, the value of the land comes to about nearly 4136 per bigha which appears to be too low, considering the fact that the location and potentiality of land of village Nangli Razapur and [ENTITY] notified u/[SECTION] on the same date is similar.
It may further be observed that, there is no evidence to reflect that there could have been such an increase in prices of land as per sale deed dated 17.3.88 @ Rs. 2,07,500 per bigha relied by petitioner when compared with sale deeds relied by respondents or min. price fixed w.e.f. 27.4.90 as per policy within a short span of time. It is a known fact that the scheme of acquisition is known to the villagers and residents much before the actual notification u/[SECTION] is issued as numerous surveys are made prior to any acquisition proceedings. As such the execution of sale deed at an enhanced rates to claim increased compensation cannot be ruled out. For the aforesaid reasons sale deed dated 17.3.88 relied by petitioner .
Contd
[ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] does not appear to be reliable to assess the value of land.
23. At this stage I may mention that I have assessed the value of land acquired for same purpose in village Khizrabad, acquired vide award no. 18/92-93 involving date of notification u/[SECTION] on 22.6.89 @ Rs.89,600/- per bigha in [CASE NUMBER] entitled Sri Ram Vs. [ENTITY], LAC No. 18/05 entitled Attar Singh Vs. [ENTITY] decided on 25.9.06 & [CASE NUMBER] entitled Bed Ram Vs. [ENTITY] on 26.09.06. It may be emphasized that the land in 9 villages as already mentioned above, has been acquired for channelization of river Yamuna. The land in village Khizrabad and the present award falls in the forward bund in the river bed area and the villages are adjacent. The land in such cases cannot be used for any other purpose and considering the typical location of the land in forward bund the rates are likely to be comparative. The rate of land in village Khizrabad has been assessed by me @ Rs. 89,600/- per bigha based on the basis of rate of land assessed by the Hon'ble High Court in [PRECEDENT] entitled [ENTITY] & Ors. Vs. [ENTITY], wherein reliance was placed on an earlier case decided by the Hon'ble High Court entitled Diwan Ram Sarup Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. decided on 23.10.92, (48) 1992 DLT 600. The rate of land in the case of [ENTITY] (Supra) for the land notified u/ 4 on 03.6.61 was assessed @ Rs. 12,500/- bigha. The rate of land in [ENTITY]'s case (Supra) involving date of notification .
Contd
[ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] u/[SECTION] 10.5.76 for the salabi land has been fixed @ Rs.35,000/- per bigha after granting 12% appreciation per annum from 03.6.61 till 10.5.76, on the rate of land assessed in [ENTITY]'s case @ Rs. 12,500/- per bigha. The rate of land has also been assessed by Ld. Predecessor of this court in [CASE NUMBER] in village Khizrabad notified u/[SECTION] on 05.7.73 for planned development of Delhi in [CASE NUMBER] entitled Raghbar Dayal Vs. [ENTITY] decided on 26.5.03 @ Rs.30,500/- relying upon [ENTITY]'s case (Supra) and granting increase @ 12% per annum. Adopting the same principle the rate of land has been assessed by me on aforesaid basis for the sailabi land @ Rs. 89,600/- per bigha in [CASE NUMBER] entitled Sri Ram Vs. [ENTITY], LAC No. 18/05 entitled Attar Singh Vs. [ENTITY] decided on 25.9.06 & [CASE NUMBER] entitled Bed Ram Vs. [ENTITY] on 26.09.06.
I have further assessed the value of land in village [ENTITY] acquired vide Award No. 14/92-93 notified u/[SECTION] on 23.06.89 in Ved Ram Vs. [ENTITY], [PRECEDENT] decided on 18.10.06 at the rate of Rs.89,600/- as the land was held to be similarly located with same potentiality.
24. In the present case the land under acquisition is also located in forward bund in river bed and appears to be similarly situated as in the case of land acquired in village [ENTITY]. Considering the location/situation / potentiality of village Nangli Razapur, there is no reason to assume that rate of land in .
Contd
[ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] village Nangli Razapur would be less than in village Khizrabad and [ENTITY]. No material evidence has been brought on record by respondents to contradict the benefits which are available to land in village [ENTITY] may not be available to the land in village Nangli Razapur which is just situated on the opposite bank and also falls within the river bed as in case of award No.14/92-93, (village [ENTITY]) involving the same date of notification and purpose. The claim is not based merely on contiguity of land but also on nature and quality of land being better than acquired vide award No. 14/92-93, village [ENTITY]. It has also been pointed out that about 794 bighas of land was denotified vide notification dated 25.01.95 u/[SECTION] of the [ACT] with respect to the land which was submersible under river Yamuna and the present land is stated to be not ordinarily submersible. There appears to be no reason as to why the rate of land assessed in Award No.19/92-93 involving the same date of notification in village Khizrabad and [CASE NUMBER], village [ENTITY] may not be adopted in present case. However, as the land is situated in forward bund area in the river bed, the possibility of any distinct advantage on account of urbanization as claimed by the petitioner is remote and may not be of much consequence. Any benefit on account of urbanization was also denied by Hon'ble High Court in [ENTITY]'s case (Supra) on account of urbanization of village Khizrabad, though the same was claimed to have been also urbanized, in view of typical location and sailabi .
Contd
[ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] nature of land. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the opinion that the value of land can be fairly assessed at the rate awarded in village [ENTITY] at the rate of Rs.89,600/- per bigha wherein the land had been acquired for the same purpose and involves the same date of notification. I am therefore of the view that it shall be fair to assess the market value of land @ Rs.89,600/- per bigha following the rate of land assessed by this Court in village Khizrabad and [ENTITY] wherein the land had been acquired for same purpose and involves the same date of notification.
I may also mention that the following authorities have been referred by the counsel for the petitioner i.e. 2006 VI AD ([ENTITY]) 284, 2006 V AD ([ENTITY]) 638, 2006 VI AD ([ENTITY]) 13, [PRECEDENT] 2006 VII AD ([ENTITY]) 665. There is no dispute with the principles enunciated in the aforesaid cases decided by the Hon'ble High Court and are well settled. However, the assessment of the value of land referred therein pertains to different villages and no parity for purpose of assessment of land can be drawn in present case, as the land in present award is situated in forward bund in the river bed.
25. ISSUE NO. 1-A: The aforesaid issue .
Contd
[ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] was framed as during the pendency of the proceedings, a revised statement was filed on behalf of the respondent since possession of some additional khasras was taken pursuant to the award which were not included in the initial statement u/[SECTION] of the Act. Petitioner claimed that the proceedings had never been stayed on any proceedings instituted on his behalf and that no evidence had been led on behalf of respondent to show that the possession had not been taken over on account of any stay or injunction obtained on his behalf. In view of above, it is submitted by counsel for petitioner that the amount u/[SECTION] of the [ACT] cannot be denied for the period commencing from the date of notification u/[SECTION] to the date of award or the date of taking possession of the land, which ever is earlier. In the absence of any specific evidence led on behalf of the respondent regarding the period for which the proceedings for acquisition of land may have been held up on account of any stay or injunction obtained by petitioner, the petitioner shall be entitled to the amount in accordance with provisions of [SECTION] of the [ACT]. Issue is accordingly decided.
26. RELIEF : In view of my findings on issues no. 2 & 3 above, the market value of the acquired land is fixed at Rs.89,600/- per bigha. Besides this petitioner will also get 30% solatium on the market value of land fixed in this case.
Contd
[ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] Petitioner shall further be entitled to additional amount of 12% on the market value fixed in this case under [SECTION] of the Act from the date of notification under [SECTION] of the Act till the date of dispossession or award whichever is earlier. Petitioner shall also be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount/compensation awarded by this court u/[SECTION]% per annum from the date of dispossession till the expiry of one year and thereafter @ 15% per annum till payment. Petitioner is further entitled to interest on solatium and additional amount in terms of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court entitled Sunder vs [ENTITY] reported in DLT 2001 (SC) 569. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
27. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Land Acquisition Collector for information and for making arrangement to remit the decreetal amount in court within the stipulated period. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court ([ENTITY]) Dated : 29.08.07 ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE [ENTITY] . Contd