* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % DATE OF DECISION: 2nd NOVEMBER, 2006. + L.A. APP. NO. 196/2006 # MAN SINGH .....Appellant Through: Mr. I.S. Dahiya, Mr. S.Chaturvedi and Mr. Deepak Khosla with Ms. Sunita Jam, Advocates. versus $ UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar for LAC. Mr. Gaurang Kanth for Mr. Deepak Pathak for respondent DSIDC. WITH L.A. APP. No.442/2006, L.A. APP. No. 456-59/2006 & CM 9729/2006, L.A. 11007/2006, L.A. APP. No.524/2006, L.A. APP. No.526/2006, L.A. APP. No. 527/2006, LA. APP. No. 544/2006, L.A. APP. No. 545-49/2006, L.A. APP. No. 579/2006 & CM 11710/2006, L.A. APP. No. 633/2006, L.A. APP. No. 636/2006 & CM 13162/2006 CORAM: * HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL * HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.P. SINGH Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No. L.A. APP. NO. 196/2006 with connec. matters Page 1 of 4 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signing Date:08.02.2024 16:36 Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified * Mukul Mudgal, J. (Oral) In the above referred appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") common questions of law and facts arise. Therefore, all these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 15.11.1996 and the declaration under section 6 of the Act was made on 21.11.1996. Thereafter award No.01/97-98 was drawn by the Land Acquisition Collector. The Land Acquisition Collector placed the acquired land in two categories. The land placed in category A was assessed @ Rs.1,86,500 per bigha and the land placed in category B was assessed @ Rs. 1,61,500/- 3 per bigha. The appellants (claimants) were not satisfied. Consequently, reference under Section 18 of the Act came up before the learned Addi. District Judge, Delhi, who enhanced the rate of land in category A to Rs.2,41,452/- and category B to Rs.2,01,452/-. The claimants as well as the Union of India challenged the said judgment. The High Court set aside the judgment and remanded the matter to the Addl. District Judge, Delhi, with directions to decide the matter afresh. This time the successor learned Addl. Distirct Judge dismissed the reference with the result that the appellants (claimants) were back to square one. Hence, the present appeals. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that entire evidence led by the appellants before remand and after the remand has not been properly appreciated by L.A. APP. NO. 196/2006 with connec. matters Page 2 of 4 the learned Addl. District Judge. Moreso, no cogent evidence was produced on behalf of the respondents. There was hardly any evidence worth considering before the Land Acquisition Collector for categorizing the land. It is stated that the lands were under cultivation. The deductions made by the LAC for development of the land were based on imagination. There were no pits (khaddas) and no removal of soil. Moreover, the lands were not acquired for the purposes of agriculture but for raising construction. It is argued that the value of the land in the adjoining villages was not considered, specially of village Bhorgarh on the basis of which the predecessor learned Addl. District Judge had enhanced the value of category A land to Rs.2,41,452/- per bigha and of category B land to Rs.2,01,452/- and the said learned Additional District Judge had relied upon the judgment of the High Court regarding village Bhorgarh and that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Om Prakash (deceased) through LRs v. UOI & Anr (2004) Vol. Vifi (AD) SC 37 held that Rs. 82,255/- per bigha was fair market value for all categories of land in village Bhorgarh. The learned counsel for appellants have also relied upon the case titled Bhim Sing!, v. State of Haryana (2003) 10 SCC 529 wherein it has been held that market value earlier fixed can also be taken into consideration for determining the market value of the land subsequently. 3. There is no dispute that exactly similar appeals pertaining to same notification, declaration, award and the final taking over of the possession of the acquired land in L.A. APP. NO. 196/2006 with connec. matters Page 3 of 4 village Bawana have been disposed in L.A. Appeal No.866/2005 titled Mahender Sin'h v. UOI & Ors. decided on 11.5.2006 and the issues involved in the present appeals are covered by the judgment. We have gone through the said judgment in which all the aspects have been dealt with extensively and the entire evidence produced before the Addi. District Judge has been re-appreciated. Reliance has been placed on several High Court and Supreme Court judgments and the appeals have been allowed. We reaffirm the said judgment and allow these appeals in terms of the said judgment and direct that the enhanced amount, interest, solatium and other statutory payments in accordance with the judgment in Mahender Sinr'h v. UOI & Ors., (supra) be made. However, the appellants shall not be entitled to interest for the period of delay, if any, in filing the appeals i.e. for the period commencing from the date of the impugned judgment till the date of filing of the appeals excluding 90 days. Payments be made not later than 15th December, 2006. With the above directions, these appeals are disposed of along with the applications. A copy of the judgment in Mahender Sinh v. UOI & Ors. (supra) be placed in this file. Decree sheets be prepared accordingly. MUKUL MUD GAL, J NOVEMBER 02, 2006 J.P. GH, J srb L.A. APP. NO. 196/2006 with connec. matters Page 4 of 4 IN TIlE WGIJ COURT OF DELffl + LR QQ % Judgment reserved on: Apri , 2006 Judgment delivered on : May 11, 2006 Sh. Mahender Slngh ....Appellan • through:. Mr. .Ravincjer Sethi, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Rajlv Kumar Ghawana, Mr. S. Ch8bwvedi and Mr. R.S. • I Dalal, AdvOcatPJ. Versus $ Union of India and.others' •...Respondents through Mr. Sanjay Poddar and Mr. Sachln Nawani, Advocates for respondents no.,land2, Ms. Pinki Anand with Ms. Jhum Jhum. Sarkar, Advocates, for respondent No. 3IDSIDC WITH LP4.APPL &L. 78512005, 78612005. 787/2005, 788-90/2005,, 791)2005, 800/2005. 86712005, 868/20050 869.7212005. 874-78/2005. 14/2006, 2 30/2QQ6, 31-3f0Q6 9-103t00, I88j). j2/X)6. 612004, 76/2004, 87312005, 60/2006. 57/2006, 61-7012006. 710064 72-76/2 17L2006, 78-8112006, 82/2006. .83/2006, 8493/2006, 12443112006, 208/2006, 209-2W2006 221J2006, 222/2006. 223-28/2006, 229-3V200, 2a3-3412006, 235-38/2QO6 39/2OO6, 240-42/2006, 243-5212006, 55/2006, 250912006, 260-6112006, 262/2006. 263/20066 and . 232/20Q LM Np 866/2005 and Conn Matters Page No 1 of CORAM: JJON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMAR RON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.L BRAYAN • 1 Whether reporters of local paper n4y be allowed to see the judgment? 2 To be referred to the reporter or not WA 3. Whether the judgment should be referred in the Digest? p • SWATANTER KUMAR. I. 1 By this common judgmet, we would dispose of , the above- mentioned appeals as they arise from a common judgment giving rise to common questions of law and fact The necessary facts .re that a notification under Section 4 and 17(1) of the Land Acquisition kct, 1894 (hereinafter referred to in short as 'the Act) was issued on 15 111996 vide notification no F 10 (39) 961L&BILA for acquisition of lands • measuring about 3604 bighas and 18 biswas situated in.The revenue estate S of village Bawana, Delhi These lands were acquired for a pubhc purpose namely for, "Shifting of Industrial area from City area of Delhi/New. Delhi", in furtherance to which Section 6 dec1araton was issued on 21111996 The respondents took the possession othe acquired land measuring about 3549 bighas & 19 biswas on 1812 996 and a Kabza Karwaz report was prepared for the same It was mentioned in that report allo 2 of 50 OS S bai rabi crop was standing on the above acquired lands The Land Acquisition Collector rendered the award bearing no 1/97-98 on 4 71997 vidmg the entire acquired lands into two blocks/categories being Blocks A and B. In the former i e Block A, the lands consisted of agricultural lands, while the latter consisted of the lands which had pitslgadhns After having recorded the evidence, the Collector fixed the value of the acquired lands as follows - • "Block A. • Rs. 1,86,500/- per. bigha Block B - Rs. 1,61,5001- per bigha" 2 Lands measuring about 1887 bighas fvas 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 theacquired lands, in the Category B was that the same consisted of Bhatta (Brick Kiln), which • included Bhatha Grund.y, gadhas upto 3 feet from which earth had been taken for making bncs The claimants were dissatisfied from the award of the Collector and prefened petitions under. Section 18 of the Act In the case of Giwni Ram vs Union of India and another LAC N62f2001 the learned Reference Court vide its judgment enhanced the compensation payable to the claimants while maintaining the LAANo 86612005 and Corn Matters PaeNp 3of50 N' p categorisation of the lands and awarded the Compensation Rs.2,41,4521- per bigha,for Blck'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 6f Jai Lal (dead) throu9h LRs vs. Unionof India 2002 (62) DPUJ 227. Against this judgment of the Referenèe 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 judgient of this Court in the case of Chajiu Ram (D) throu,h LRs vs. Union of Irdia and Ors, RFA No 52212002, 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:- . "Before us it was submitted that the claimants' have not led any evidence with regard to yield. Land which was sought to be acquired was agricultural land and the yield, has .a 'bearing on determining the amount of • compensation. It is also required to be noted that over and, above the yield, there are other aspects which are required to be taken into consideration. On behalf of ' the claimants strong reliance was placed on the judgment of Division Bench in the case of Jai Lal , (dead)' through L.Rs vs. Union of India reported in'' • ' 2002 (62) IDRJ 227. As .against that on behalf of the LM Np. 86612005 and Coon, Matters' , Page No. 4 of 50 Union of India reliance was placed on a. subsequent 'judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court on Febniary 7, 2003 in RFA 464/88 entitled Union of India vs. Ainar Singh wherein the Bench had an occasion to examine the' earlier decision which we have just referred. In a matter of land acquisitioii where the agiicultiiral lands are sought to be acquired in the opinion of the Court 'there must be evidence with regard to yield. On the basis : of a small parcel of land it would' not be correct to say that the court must determine the • amount. In view of this request was made by the claimants the claimants are the farmer and they should be given an opportunity in lead evidence in this behalf. No doubt the claimants were assisted by the lawyers but it does not meat that the farmers should not be given an opportunity to lead the evidence on material aspect. Union of India objectâd for grant of such an opportunity. It is stated that it would amount to filling the gaps. 'Loong to 'the peculiar, facts and circumstances of the case and in order to the complete justice this Court is of the opinion that opportunity 1. should be given to claimants as well as the acquinng authority to lead evidence in this behalf. Itis in view 6f the opinion.that we have expressed hereinabove, the appeals 'preferred by the claimants as well as the acquiring authority are required to be disposed of with the direction to the Reference Court to complete the exercise of regarding çvidence land deliver fresh award within a period of 'six months.' At the same time if the adjournrnents are sought for and granted by the Reference Court, then the time shall stand automatically extended to the extent adjournment isgranted. On behalf of the Union of India it was submitted that they have deposited the amount in the Court in most of tbt cases and. in some of the cases amount has been withdrawn. We are told that the claimants who have withdrawn the amount, it is On furnishing a bank guarantee. It is in view of this, we direct 'that bank 'guarantees shall stand extended till LMNo. 866/2005 éndCorin. Matters No.5 qfQ • S S period of six months àpires from the date of decision that may be made by the Reference Court It goes without saving that if the amount is reduced by the Reference Court. The claimants who have taken the money shall have to .restitute without any demur and at the same time if there is change in the amount in favour, of the claimants, the amount will have to be paid by the Union of India. In view of what is stated hereinabove, the award made by the Reference Court is set aside with the direction to permit the parties to •lad the evidence taking into consideration the fresh evidence recorded as well as evidence already there and to decide the reference in accordance with law. • . . At the request of learned counsel for the parties we direct that the matter be listed before the Court concerned on 5th December, 2003. Advocates shall appear before the Court and shall ensure that they will cooperate in hearing and disposal of the matter. No fresh notice will be issued to the parties in view of. • this anangement. 0 Trial Court record be sent• back forthwith. . . • . . Sd/. S CHIEF JUSTICE • • November 20,2003 • • SW- S . A.K. SJKRI, J."• 3 • The parties led further evidence, oral as well as docurnen • • S as per the order of remand Earlier reference being LAC NO 11 1/2(?00 was renumbered as LAC No 312/2003 and vide judgment daed 313 2006 the Reference Court declined any enhancement to the claimats and m4lntained the award of th4, Collector in all its aspects .5. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the yarious appellants wii1e Q1QL arguing the present appeals referred to the facts. and records of LA.AppI. No 86612005 titled as Mahdder S:nfh vs Union gf India and Ors LA Appi No 188,2006 titled as Rain Her vs.LLnzpn cf India and Ors and LA.Appl. No. 19212006 titled as He: Ram vs. Union of India and Q_M which arise from LAC Nos. 213t2003, 392t2003 and 384/2003 [LAC 117/2001 (old)Jrespectively. . The appellants Het Rain, Ram Her. and Mahender Singh owned and possessed lands, . in their respective shares. as stated in the award relating tothe acquired lands. Their lñds were acquired vide notification and possession taken on the dates as afore-indicated All these claimants led evidence in their respective cases but the main evidence was recorded Before we discuss the effect of oral and documentary evidence led by the parties before hè Reference Court, we may refer to the challenges made by the appellants to the impugned judgment, which.are as follows:- .. .. . (a) The Reference Court has failid to appreciate the evidence on record in its correct perspective and thus, hag fallen in error of law and fact, both (b). The Reference Court could not have brushed aside the entire evidence led by the complainants in relation to the agncultural yield particularly in view of the order of remand Rassed by the High Court, for, the reasons Matters . Page No 7 of 5Q which are neither plausible nor can be supported in law. The &L La1' case was squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances Of the present cases and the court, thus, while relying upon the said judgment ought to have given 12% compounding increase for the intervening period and then determined the market value of the land payable to the owners in light of this judgment and there was no occasion for the Reference Court to dismiss the reference petitions. Affirming the cater'nrisatjon made by the Collector was again an error of both law and fact committed by the Reference Court as there was no evidence to support the plea of categOrisation. On the contrary, the owners had led sufficient evidence which would entitle them to receive uiform rate of compensation forthe entire acquired lands. .(e) With reference to the Master Plan, Ex.M1, it is argued that the value of the land should have been assessed with reference to the potential of the land beinj residential and commercial, entitling the claimants to grant of higher compensation (f) In any case and in all events, thee claimants would have been entitled to interest on solatiurn as well as the additional value for a period of 7 V2. months and interest thereupon. The learned Reference Court, thus, has completely fallen in error, even of calculation and the judgment is hable to be allowed to that extent, . . . . .. . LM No. 866/2005 and Conn, Matters Pe No, 8 of FQ S 7 We may take the last point first. In the award dated 47 1997, the Collector, while assessing the market value of the land referred to the fact that the claim made by the appellants @ Rs. 50 :lacs per acre and above was exorbitant and while referring to the pohcy announced by the Government, which was made effective from 1 4 1997 in the financial year 1997-98 noticed that the price of agncuitural land was @ Rs 10 lacs per acre for the acquired agricultural lands. Referring to the earlier value fixed by the Government whcb was @ Rs.4.65 lacs per acre for the policy which came into effect on 274 1990 and gave increase @ 1150% per annum compounded; in coming to the value of the land for Block 'A'; @ Rs 1,86,500/- per bigha. It may be noticed that this value was fixed upto the financial year 1996-97 in terms of the award, obviously, not giving any benefit to the claimants from 1st Apnl to 15th November, 1996 when the notification in relation to the acquired land was issued This claim of the claimants is fully justified and the claimants were entitled to the increase for these 7 ½ months @ 11 5% 8 The learned counsel appearing for the respondents very fairly stated that the claimants would be entitled to interest on solatiuxn and also on this increased value, if given by the court. This particular claim of the claimants need not detain us any further, as it appears to be an arithematical error in the award of the Collector as well as judgment of LAA No. 86612005 and Corn 1 Mattçrs Page No.9 oL5O the Reference. Court. Tijis similai point was dealt with by the Court at some lóngth and decided in.favour of the claimants in a recent judgmexft pronounced in the case of Gira/ Singh vs. Union of India LA.Appl. No. 9112005 decided on 274 p006 In addition to what we have stated above and for the reasons recoded even in that judgment, we will allow both these claims of the claimants. The claimants would thus be entitled to increase in terms of the.vilue @11.5% for aperiod of 7 ½ months. They will also be entitled to intrest' on this sum as well as the solatium payable to the claimants in accord.nce with law. I A2licuIturaI yield 9 Initially it was argued on behalf of the claimants that they had placed sufficient evidence on record to show that they had an income of nearly 2.45 lacs per year from the agricultural produce of the acquired lands and while applying the multiplier of 16, they would be entitled to compensation @ Rs. 3. lacs per bigha. Reference in this regard was made to the statements of Sh Ved Prakash Sharma (PWR-1), Sh C P Gandhi (PWR-2), Sh Ajay, Kumar Tyagi (PWR-3) and Mr. Irfan (PWR-4) which related to the nature, birth of the produce, sale and the ratesprevailing in the market for sale of such agricultural produce However, later during the course of aguments, it was stated by the learned Senior Counsel • appearing for the claimants that they; .do not press this argument any further and do not claim enhancement of compensation on the basis of • agricultural yield, but' subject to the other pleas taken by them. • V Accordingly, we do not find it neôessary to discuss this aspect in any • further detail as the plea is given up before this Court. Is the Categonsatlon of land justified '- 10. As we have already noticed that out of the total acquired land measuring about 3549 bighas and 19 biswas, 1887 bighas was treated as • lands falling in'.Block 'A' while 1701.18 bighas was treated as Block 'B' land giving tem different compensation This categorisation of land was based upon the following conclusion arriyed at by the Collector, as stated • in the award of the Collector- : "• "The land under acquisition is agricultural' land and is being used for agriculture as well as Bhátta purpose. A - small acre is also having built up structures and used • V for other purposes. Details of the same have been • V V discussed under the heading 'Structure'. "The land • which is being V u%ed for Ehatta purpose is having • V 'Gadhas' upto three feet . from which earth has' been taken out for making bricks. This also includes 'Bhatta V • Grund'. Hence,, for the purpose of assessing the market V V value, land can fairly be divided into two blocks. One V V block will consist of level land under cultivation and V built. up area total measuring 1887 bighäs 12 biswàs' • • categorised as Block 'A' and second 'block will cOnsist V V of 'Gadhas' and 'Bhatta' Grund' measurihg 1701 bighas V • . V • in biswas categorised as Block 'B'." • V V V • . LAA Np. 866/2005 and Conn. Matters . 1 ifQ 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 ôome 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