RFA No.41/1999 Page 1 of 5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: August 30, 2012 Pronounced on: September 18, 2012 + RFA No. 41/1999 SUKHBIR SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Inder Singh & Ms. Vijay Laxmi, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT 1. Enhancement of compensation sought in this appeal, relates to an acquisition of land in Village- Wazirabad, Delhi in pursuance to Notification of 4th September, 1967 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The market value of the subject land was assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector @ `2,100/- per bigha and the Reference Court vide impugned judgment of 26th May, 1997 has dismissed the reference petition of appellants, for want of evidence. 2. Enhanced compensation @ `40 per sq. yard i.e. @`40,000/- per Bigha is sought in this appeal by learned counsel for appellants while relying upon decisions in ‘Vijay Singh & ors. vs. Union of India RFA No.41/1999 Page 2 of 5 & ors.’, 111 (2004) DLT 751 (DB); ‘Bedi Ram vs. Union of India & Anr.’, 93(2001)DLT 150 (DB) and RFA No.146/1999 ‘Pratap Singh & ors. Vs. Union of India’ rendered on 30th August, 2001. 3. In the instant appeal, it was urged on behalf of appellants that it is evident from the Award in question that the acquired land is near village abadi and across the road and away from the river. Thus, it was contended on behalf of appellants that the acquired land had great potential value and so, taking the market rate of the acquired land in question @ `8,500/- per Bigha as in October, 1961, with appreciation of 10% per annum, market rate of the acquired land in question on the date of Notification in September, 1967 would come to `15,000/- per Bigha. 4. While relying upon decisions in RFA No. 477/1998 ‘Vijay Singh Vs. UOI’ DLT III (2004) 751 & ‘Bedi Ram Vs. UOI’ 93 (2001) DLT 150, learned counsel for respondent had urged that the decisions in Pratap Singh (supra), Vijay Singh (supra) and Bedi Ram (supra), relied upon by appellants would not serve as a guide for determining the market value in this case, as the application of increase of 10% can be adopted when the period between the two Notifications is only of few years and not when the gap between the two Notifications is substantial one and so compensation @ `8,500/- per Bigha cannot form the basis to seek enhancement in compensation in the instant case. Thus, it was urged that the precedents relied upon on behalf of appellants are not shown to be comparable with the acquired land in RFA No.41/1999 Page 3 of 5 question and since no evidence was led by appellants, therefore, the Reference Court has rightly dismissed the reference petition and this appeal must also fail in absence of evidence to justify the enhancement of compensation as claimed. 5. The respective submissions of both sides have been duly considered in the light of the decisions cited. Thereupon, it transpires that a Division Bench of this Court in Pratap Singh (supra), has assessed the compensation in respect of acquisition of land of this village @ ` 6,500/- per Bigha in relation to Notification of November, 1959 and @ `8,500/- per Bigha qua Notification of October, 1961 but had limited the compensation to `5,000/- per Bigha as claimed, while noting as under:- ‘This Court has also determined the fair market value payable for the lands, which were acquired in number of revenue estates Delhi by the general notification issued on 13th November, 1959 at varying rates from Rs.3,500/- to Rs.12,000/- per bigha, considering the location and potentiality of the land.’ 6. There is no hard and fast rule or strait- jacket formula to assess market value of the acquired lands and in the absence of evidence regarding potentiality of the acquired land, comparable precedents can always be relied upon to reasonably assess the market value of the acquired land while computing the rate of escalation in price of acquired land @ 10% per annum. The decisions in Vijay Singh (supra) and Bedi Ram (supra) relied upon by appellants’ counsel are RFA No.41/1999 Page 4 of 5 found to be not comparable and hence are excluded from consideration. 7. In Pratap Singh (supra), acquisition of land in Village Wazirabad, Delhi was for ‘Marginal Embankment on the Right Bank of River Yamuna’ and the compensation assessed was @ `8,500/- per Bigha in relation to Notification of October, 1961. The thumb rule to increase the market value by 10% or so is subject to the valuation where peculiar events are available in the form of evidence to reflect increase in growth and in appropriate cases the increase can vary in percentage. Therefore, the enhancement of compensation to `8,500/- per Bigha cannot be taken the basis to workout increase from the year 1961 till the year 1967, as it stands noted in Pratap Singh (supra) that the varying rates of the land in question ranged from `3,500/- to `12,000/- per Bigha. 8. Being conscious of the fact that no evidence has been led in the instant matter, it is deemed fit that compensation claimed @ `5,000/- in Pratap Singh (supra), should be made the basis to work out compensation in the instant matter. Relevantly, in Pratap Singh (supra), acquisition of land of the village in question was by virtue of a Notification of March, 1970 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, whereas in the instant matter, acquisition of land of this village is of the year 1967. So even if 10% is made the basis, the compensation for acquisition of land in question in the year 1967 would be about `3,600/- per Bigha, which in the facts of this case is rounded of to RFA No.41/1999 Page 5 of 5 `4,000/- per Bigha, with statutory benefits in terms of Apex Court decision in Sunder Vs. UOI (2001) 93 DLT 569. 9. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs. (SUNIL GAUR) Judge September 18, 2012 pkb/rs