II..i THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.A. No. 193 of 2096 1l ,lt I I : : ', / i/vI 1 % o/o IPr i i Pratap Singh (dead) through Lf,s. etc.etc. through : . . . APPellants ..1 Mr. 8.5. Maan with Mr. Neeraj Chaudhary, Mi. O.M. Prakash, Mr. Jai Prak'ash, Mr. HardeeP Singh Advocates for the aPPellant in LA.A. No. 193/2005 E.750/?008. I I I I I U.e. No.,tg3/2005 & ntk 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 I r: Mr. Ankit Jain, Advocate for the aPPetlant in LAA Nos' 298-98/06' Mr. 5.S. Panwar, Advocate for the aPPellant in LAA Nos' 354/06 &' 376/2005. ''J Mr- 1.5. Dahiya for the appellant in LAA Nos. 634,182, .194'182' '[94, 195, 197 , 198, 264, 268; 282,283,284' 28;,5' 312' 322, 323, 324, 355, 356, 357,358'59' 360, 361, 362, 363, 371' 372' 373, 374, 375, 378, 382, 443, 444, 445, 587,763 of 2006' 215, 218, 219, 221 and 237 /2007 ' Ms. DeePika' Advocate for the aPPellant in LAA No' 235/2007' Ms. Savita Rustagi, Advocate for the appellants in LA.A. Nos. 621, 622, 623, 624, 525, 626, 628, 629, 634, 698, 699,702 798, 713, 771, 772, 212/2006- Mr. Satpal Singh with Mr. R'B' Singh, Advocates for the appelfants in LA.A. Nos. 528/05 529-40/06, 588-89/06. VERSUS Union of lndia & Ors. . . . ResPondents Mr. SanjaY Poddar, Advocate for the LAC. Mr. Gaurav Sarin with Ms. Charul Sarin, Aduocates throt4gh : for the DDA. Ms. Savita Rustagi, Advocate for the resPondent No'2 in LA.A- Nos. 711, 7't2, 726' 727 and 775/2005. COMM:- THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K SIKRI THEHoN'BLEMR.JUSTICEMANMoHANSINGH U.A. NQ. 193/2005 e b ntk .'! ';+4 - 1' I I.l of 3{ I ,-."_-l I I I I I I I I i 2 Hr I I I .-_____) whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? To be referred to the Reporter or not? whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest? AJ1. SlKRr,. l. l. Alt these appeals are filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') challenging the market value of the acquired land fixed by the learnbd Addl. District Judge in the impugned award(s). The appeals which were heard on Z6.lL20O8 relate to the land situate in Village Estate of Tikri Kalan acquired by different awards. Some other appeals were thereafter ' subsequently reserved on 4.12.2008,. which though belong to different village, namely, 6hevra, but the legal submissions made by the counsel for the parties while arguing Tikri Kalan cases were adopted in these appeals. Therefore, while reserving these appeals on 4.'l2.2OOB, following order was passed :- "Learned counsel for the partieS'subtnit that the arguments in these cases are the same which have been advanced in appeals ,.tutint to Village Tikri. Additional submissions relevant to this case hive beenhade by tearned counsel for the parties' The judgmentinthoseappealspertainingtoVil|age.Tikrihave already been reserved on 27th November' 2008. Since learned counse|forthepartiesareadoptingthesa.Fearguments' judgmentintheseca5e5isalsoreservedtobepronounced along with those cases"' Subsequently, sQme other appeals were also heard on l8'12'2OO8 and parties agreed about the commonality of the issue in those appeals as well. lt is because of this commonality that we are proposing to dispose of all these appeals by this common judgment' l. 2. 3. Y { I \} 2. .f-va qrii.?,.- oi.*}.{* :rill'r.? "t Page 3 of 34 I -----) 3. we would first take up the matters relatinS to village Tikri Kalan and the decision in respect of these appeals we form the basis for the appeals relating to other villages' ln respect of Tikri Kalan, various notifications have been issued from time to time acquiring different portions of land of that village' A 4. 5. glimpse of the passed in those at hand. Land of village Tikri following manner:- details of the various notifications and the awards cases would be necessary- before discussing' the issues Kalan was acquired by different awards in the Shown as, fffili"k JoTl"?;" Purpose ;*,g. No' Bisha - Biswa struction of check lTikriKalan,De|hi39-03l.lo.lgSobarrieratTikriBorderon Dated 21.10.1982 Dethi'Rohtak Road Possession taken over on 24.4'1992 of land 39 bigha O3 bisuras' 91/1983-84 Tikri Kalan, Delhi Dated 14.2.1984 60-08 Widening of Rohtak 28.11.1981 Road fossession taken over on 28.7'lgSlof land 60 bigha 08 biir'vis' 24.7.1995 possession of 561 bigha 10 bisuas rand notified under sec 6 of the lA Act has been takery'handed over on 21.9.1995 17/1997-98 Tikri Kalan, Delhi Dated 23.12.1997 502 -06 Possession taken over on 30.1.1996 of land 5o2 bigha 06 binuas' 140 -o2 16.11.1995 Construction of 40 meter wide road for PVC Market under PDD. MV fixed @ Rs.168000/- pb Possession taken over on 30.1.1996 of land 14O bigha 02 bispas' I U.A. No. 193/2005 & batd ntk 2/1997-98 Tikri Kalan, Delhi Dated 23.7.1997 18/1997-98 Tikri Kalan, Delhi Dated 23.12.1997 560 - 11 :;';:,;:1"..,',::: ll Settlement "irPVt dealers rc 16.11.1995 Jawalapuri' under PDD' E #J;8ffii?' - Page4 of 34 .._-- -- _-J Possession taken over on 21.4.1997 of land 84 bigha ll bisrrras. 3/DCW/1998-99 Tikri Kalan, Delhi Dated 16.10.1998 4/DqV/1998-99 Tikri Kalan, Delhi Dated 16.10.1998 84-11 11.6.1995 156 - 15 11.6.1996 480 -14 17.12.2002 For expansion of LPG bottling plant lndian Oil ' Corporation Ltd. under PDD. M.V. fixed @ Rs.168000/- pb For setting uP sPorts school near Ghevra More, M.V. fixed @' Rs.208333/- pb For KV. Grid Sub Station M.V. fixed @ Rs.3,27083.33/- p.b. ,/ ( i :l 4 Possession taken over on 21.4.1997 of land 84 bighh ll biswas 6. The AK$ Sirza of village Tikri Kalan, Tehsil Punjabi Bagh, Distiict West Delhi is drawn below -itn the colours of different lands acquired from time to time :- AI$ SIZR/\ OF VILTAGE TIKRI KAIAN THE. PUNJABI BAGH' DISTT. WEST ELHI. NO. HADBAST I2O YEAR I98O-8I c .MME Rc I AL Acr rv rrr EiilPrTEYi,lS$li,HiFJll Possession taken over on 27.4.7997 of land 84 bigha 11 bisuras 2/DCW/2004-05 Tikri Kalan, Delhi Dated 16.10.1998 2nd phase of PVC Award No. 17/97-98 l- -t Bottllng Plant of tob Award No.4 DC\IV 98-99 For Sport School Award No. 3/Dcw98-ss For40O/220 K.V. Grld statlon Award No. zlDsNlz0f/.'os Page 5 of 34 3a phase of P\K vide Award No. 18 ACw/98-99 ffi- I ,J 7. Here itself, in order to properly understand the exact location of'the Village Tikri Kalan, we reproduce the portion of the city Map' as prepared by Eicher, over which there was no dispute :- '! ,./ I / f-' ; er:t{'?tr ,::l*|l! I[HF} IA.A. Na 193/2N5 & batch . ru* Page 6 ot 34 1) Since LA.A. No. 193/2006 is made the lead case' which deals 'ry Notification dated 24.7.1gg5, we shall initiate our discussion on tl'/b basis of awards made by the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) and the Addl. District Judge (ADJ) respectively in this case' lt 'is also for the reason that being a lead case, arguments were addressed taking into consideration these awards as well as documents and evidence produced by the parties in this case before the learned ADJ' The LAC, in his award No' 2/19g7-gg dated 23J'1997 diviiled the land in two blocks, nurn.iy, Block-A and Block-B and fixed the market value of the Block-A land at Rs.l,68,000/- and Block-B land at Rs.1,26,84O/- per bigha' On this market value' he allowed solatium @ 3}o/o p.a. under Section 23(2) and also gavei additionat amount @ 12o/o p.a. and interest as well under Section 34 of the Act' It is stated in the Award that while fixing the market value' he took into consideration the date of Notificltign under Section 4 of the Act as the relevant date and kept in mind several factors such as location of the land, nature of the soil, awards announced in the recent past of the same area or adjacent villages, pronouncements of different courts, claims filed by the interested Persons and price policy of the Government regarding acquisition of agricultural land' After discussing these factors in brief, he ultimately. made policy announcement of the Government dated 1'4"lgg7 ut ih" basis of fixing the market value. Vide the said policy for the financial yeqr I 1gg7-g8, which came into effect on 1.4'1gg7, the Governmerlt of Delhi has fixed the indicative price of the agricultural land :' ryf,, PapeT of 34 U.A. No. 19?/1006 & bakh nsk I 9. .l ,i ,t,/ 'w 'ri IJ I I i I Ij lacs per acre. Since the notification is of an earlier date, i"e' 22.8.'lgg5, going backwards, he made deduction from the said IO amount at Rs.ll .5o/o p.a. on compounding basis and in this manner arrived at market value of Block-A land Rs.8.05,400/- per acre (or Rs.I,68,000/- per bigha). ln respect of Block-B land, compensation at lesser rate is given for the reason that this land had Oadhas & BhattasGrand and earth had been taken out for making bricks- The LAC, thus, opined that land owners had already got some compensation for their land by removing the earth from the land for making bricks and, therefoie, the land had now become of inferior quality. 10. The learned ADJ, while answering the reference under Section 18 of the Act, has rejected the demand of the appellants for increase in the market value fixed by the LAc. As would be noted in detail at the relevant stage, after discussing the evidence 'and the material produced by both sides, he returned'hif'findings holding that it was not advisable to fix the market value on the basis of the evidence produced by the land owners and appropriate course of action would be to fall back on the policy decision of the Government' iThus, he agreed with the exercise undertaken by the tAC and did not iinterfere with the price fixation made by the LAc. According to the appellants, they deserve better and higher price for the land that what is fixed by the authorities below. Page 8 of 34 i/ / I \l i 11. .$,r.1', rffi-l.Fo, ,) 12. Mr. B.S. Maan, Advocate opened arguments in this appeal, which were adopted in other appeals filed by him. Mr. l.s. Dahiya, *n7 / .r/ appeared in LA.A. No. 534/2006 and some other appeals made ' additional submissions while adopting the arguments made by Mr' Maan. Mr. 5.5. Panwar appeared for some of the appellants who are the owners of the land classified in Block-B and submitted that the differentiation made by the LAc and accepted by'the learned ADJwasnotproperandhisc|ientswerealsoentit|edtothesame compensation which would be admissible for the land owners of Brock-A. -W 13. Following foundation was sought to be laid by Mr' Maan for i -l claiming higher comPensation :- I I (a) DDA itself had chafged rate of Rs.l,02'56,600/- per acre for the ; r..i acquired land while allotting this land to Pvc Bazaar' His I submissionwasthat|andinquestionwasacquiredfor'. i". settlement of pvc dealers'-of 'Jawalapuri and before the possessionofthelandcouldbetakenintheyearl99T, allotment was made to various dealers in the year 1996 itself it theaforesaidrate.Theappellantshadproducedal|otment I |etter dated 26,9.1996 issued by the DDA in favour of one Shri Kirpalsingh,PVcdealerinJawalapuri,whichshowedthe allotment at the dforesaid rate. He submitted that even if half of the land was used for other purposes in the development of PVCmarketandadjustmentthereofistobegiven,themarket \J value of the developed land would come U.A. No. 193/2005 8' tuffi ntk to Rs.50 lacs Per Page9 of 34 I acre. He had also submitted that the Supreme Court in var8y2l --- )- cases had held developmeni charges can be deducted, which may range from 2Oo/o to 53o/o and even if in the instant case development charges are deducted at 33o/o. i.e. Rs.l7 lacs, the market value of the land would be approximately Rs.33 lacs per acre (Rs.6 lacs per bigha). Therefore, his submission was that the compensation claimed by the land owners, who are asking . enhancement by Rs.2 lacs per bigha only over and above Rs.I,68,000/- per bigha granted by the LAc andlear:ned ADj, was quite reascinable, was the submission' He also sought to rely upon certain Sale Deeds. He submitted that five sale deeds were of the same area and same village and two sale deeds of two sale deeds wee of the land-belonging to the neighbouring village. His submission was that these sale deeds were proximate to the date of Section 4 Notification videwhichthelandwasacqu':9'thesewerebonafidesa|e deeds: were also of the same village of which land was acquiredorthenearbyvillage.Accordingtohim,allthe relevant considerations, which could be the basis for arriving at the market value, were fulfilled. He submitted that as per the law laid down by the supreme court, once sale dee{s of the same village of proximate dates were available, those furnish the best evidence for fixing the market value. 'According to him, there was no reason to discard these sale deeds and the I learnedADJerredinignoringthesesaledeedson|yonthe (b) I II ffi' @nsk ! ground that the land was purchased by a company, namely, Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (L&T) for the purpose of setting uP Readymix Cement Concrete Plant, as against the land user bring agricultural. He also submitted that these sale deeds'may pertain to small area but what was to be kept in mind was that majority of the land owners owned less than 1000 sq.yds. in the said village, which was clear from the award of the LAC as well wherein particulars of various land owners, along with measurement of the land belonging to them, were given. He further submitted that sale deeds produced by1he respondent had to be ignored as the consideration depicted in those sale deeds were even lower than the market value' indicated in the Government Policy, which would clear:ly demonstrate that those sale deeds were of suppressed value. (c) He submitted that the appellants had given sufficient evidence showing development of the said area'and potentiality of the land. He pointed out that though the land in question was acquired in the year lgg5, for which Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 24.7.1995, first acquisition took place way back in the year 1980 when the land was acqirired for. construction of Check Barrier at Tikri border. . Therefore, vide Award No. 9l/1983-84 dated 14.2:1984, 60 bigha 8 biswas land was acquired, for which Section 4 Notification was issued on 28.11.1981. The public purpose stated therein was ?\, i 2-" ', I I U.e. Xp. PEAOOi A Oatch ntk Page 11 of 34 a 'Widening of Rohtak Road'. According to him, therefcre, development ln the said area had started at that time and 'rl*e potentiality of the land could not be undermined- He referred to"the evidence of one of the appellant, namely' Sl'rri Tej Pal (LR of Shri Pratap Singh (deceased)) wherein he had stated in his affidavit as under :- u4. That, the |and of the vil|age Tikri Kalan, De|hi has Sotpotentia|ityofthebuildingsite'as.thelevelof I.quired land is as good as provided, for residential colonies, set up by thi DDA. However, it is stated that the land of the petitioner was acquired for setting up of the PVC market of Jawalapuri, devastated by the broken fire. 7. That National High Way No' 10, from Delhi to Firozpur, passes only 1/2 K.M. away from acquired land' which was come in existence before independence. This road is also used for transporting the raw and ready material from the acquired land by the occupaht of the PVC market. 11. That, lndustriat area know as M.E.t Phase I & lt on the border Town, Bahadurgah, Haryanb were developed by the Haryana Govt.. in..year 1977-78, which are adjacent to the acquired.- land. which is full-fledged township and North lndia's famour grain Mandi, at Bahadurgah is next to village Tikri Kalan, on its western side. tt is also stated that HUDA has developed 10-12, residential sector, in the Bahadurgarh, where the market value of the land in the year 1995 was @ Rs'3,000/- to Rs.4,000/- Per sq.Yards." In this affidavit, other development which has tak en place in the neighbouring area is also mentioned. On the basis of the aforesaid material and evidence, Mr' Maan pleaded that the prayer for enhancement of compensation by R.s.2 lacs per bigha was reasonable and should be allowed. He also referred to the following judgments in support of his contentions :- Page 12 of 34 3? .l xx xx \ 14. +'$$* (a) Ram Kishan (deceased by LRs) v. Union of India AIR 2004 Delhi 270 "4. We have gone through the Supreme court decisions in the above referred case and in our opinion the reliance of the learned Additional District Judge on these judgments was wholly misplaced because in the case in hand, there is neither any plea nor it has been shown that the land which was transferred by means of.the sale ',1{ deed which formed the basis of the impugned judgment, was a -D developed piece of land or was in any other way in an ; advantageous position than the acquired land. ln support of his contenti6n that cut of 2Oo/o towards development charges is justified, Mr.Sanjay Poddar has heavily relied uPon a recent decision of the Supreme Court in the ..r" oi Kasturi and 6ri" v' State of' Haryana, (2003) 1 SCC 354 ; (AlR 2OO3 SC 202). on the facts and circumstances of that case, the court held that in respect of the agricultural land or undeveloped land which has potential value for housing or commercial purposes, normally 1/3rd amount of compe-nsation is deducted out of the amount of compensation payable for the acquired land subject .to certain variations depending on its natuie, location, extent of expenditure involved foi development and the area required for roads and other civic amenities to develop the land so as to make the plots for residential or commercial puipor.r. ln that case, tho.ugh the lgnd .of the claimants was undeveloped but it was specifically pleaded that the area adjoining his land was a developed area and claimed the price of his land at par with the develop.a lapd. lt was in these facts aird circumstances that the Court toot the.view that a cut of 2Oolo as compared to the price of developed land was justified. ln our view' this authority cunnoi govern the facts of the present case as here the appellants-claimants a-re not claiming price of thejr lqld a!. Rar rlith the developed land. lnfact, their cliim was restricted to the extent of same kind of tand, i... agricultural land which was sold about a year before the notification under*Section 4 of the Act was issued' Thus, in our considered view, the learned Reference court fell into error by making a deduction of 2oo/o from the average price of Rs.32,4Oo/- p.r"bigha as established from the sale deed' However' having regard to the fact that the aiea of acquired land is quite large as comparea toite area of the fan! y!ich-w3.s the subjeclT::l :i the sale deed dated 14th May, 7986, (Ex'P-2)' We a,re- p-rePerqd-tg Theiefore, on consideration of the @ndcircumstancesofthisca5ewe.holdthatthe average market price of similar tyPe of laM ^ would come to *s.zgi6o/- per bigha in the month oi May' 1986'" (b) Thakarsibhai Deuiibhai & ors. v. Executive Engineer & Anr" AIR 2001 sc 2424 -12. As we have said abovb the High Court fell into error by reducing the quantum of .otp"nrutiori on this basis. The reduction has been made for two reasons, on" ihut the present acquisition is of larger area and the second the distance between the land under ' Page rl or lf I i I I I i- I I I t ,.ri U.,q. No. 193/2006 & batuh ntk acquisition and Ex. 16 is about 5 kms. with refergncg.to qgestlqo 9f ffi tqg.thgt thgn th" u."? bq.g-ql leE".. Eu:h ? l*rd"-*ri ttotaings aire of small area. Even otherwise visioning in) the line with submlssion for the State we find Ex. 16 is about two hectares of land which cannot,be said to be of small piece of iland' 5o far the other question of distance between the Nvo clasjes of lands, that by itself cannot derogate the claim of the claimant unless there are some suchi other materials to show that quality and potentiality of such laprd is inferior. However, distance between the iand under Ex. 16 andithe present land even if they are 5 kms' apart would not be relevant, the relevancy could be, their distances from the Viramgam town. We find, as per maP produced UV llg S311 tn1 present acluired tandiis about. 3 kms. away from it, while--tl3e tanf under Ex. 16 is aSout iwo kilomet'ers away from it. This'diffeience is not such to lead to'rgduce the rdte of compensation, specially on tfre facts of this casej.'ln the pr'esent'cdse, as'we'have recorded ;;;;, i, hur u..n found that the quality iniluding potentialiy of land between Exh. 15, and the present one are similar. No evidence has been led on behalf of the State to find difference between the two. ln view of thisl the. inference drawn by the High Court for reducing the compehsation by Rs. 1O/- Per sq' mtr' cannot be I -,-) sustained.l' RRal Singh &, Ors.v. 2006 (Be) DRJ 527 ( tnion of lndia & Anr., B) and ChimanLal thus giving a value of l-ess than Rs.9 ,OOO/- per bigha' To this extent' the sJbmiision of the respondents cannot be accepted." . Pagel4 of 34 (c) II .IG. Learned .ounrh appearing for the respondents clainls that Ex.pWl/2 was not the true index gf tf,e market value of the lbnd at the time of issuance gr tne notification. According to him, the court should rely upon Ex.R2 to B5 a-nd there is no justification for interfering with thelirJgment bf.tbe-reference court. ln support of this contJntion he r"ti"i upon Ex.Rl, the Award of the Collector in relation to the acquirbd land wherein a sale instance was referred to at item No. 22 of Ex.Rl wherein the vendor had sold 3'15 bighas of land for a sale consideration of Rs.l,70,000/- on 29tt'July, 1986'by a registered sale deed. Reference was also made to the other sale instances recorded in the reference. tt was further urged on b-ehalf of the respondents that deduction, if not 1/3'd, at least of 20 per cent should be n'iade towards development charges bbfore determining the amdunt of compensation payable to the claimants' ln this ,.guid he relied upon the judgmentl of the Supreme Court in the case of Kasturi uria oif,"rs v. State of Haryana (2003) 1 SCC -354 vlrrs,S: Yr.v vv,v..,,.)-;'; ----,-- -'. ' vid. E"R2Jh. tfra |n.uiuring amount 4 bighas 16 biswas from the revenue estate of village Bamnoli was sold for a sum of Rs'37'000/- ffi U.A. No,-193/2OPq &htd ntk (d) The Land Acquisition officer Revenue Divisional officer Nalgonda (A.P.)v. Morisetty Satyanarayana &, Ors.' 2002 (1) LAcc (Vol. 24) 1 "8. lt is true that normally while fixing the market price of tnb land under acquisition, when the sale instances are for small piece land then appropriate reduction is required to be made while fixi the market price of land under acquisition. However, in the case, the land which is acquired is out of the same survey n Various sale-deeds produced on record reflect the increase in of the portions of land of the same survey number. other ev on record indicates that in the village there is increase in ma . tit/ / price of land during the relevant years. Therefore, considering t increasing trend of ine market price and the fact that'small pieces land owned by different persons are acqi.rired, this would not be'a fit case for reducing the amount on the ground that relevant sale deeds is for a small piece of land." (e) RameshwarSolankiv. IJnion of India' AIR 1995 Delhi 358 I (33) [n answer to this contention, .ount"l for the appellant has 'ieferred to the judgment of the Supreme Court, rbported ?l 19?1 Land Acquisition iurll, 318 (Bhagwatmla Samanira v. lp::t,t] Talhsildar mid Land Acquisition officer), wherein Justice FatlTa Bibi, speaking for the Court, stated: I ,,The proposition that large area of land cannot possiblY f:lth tt price'at the same rate which the small plots