Kapil Mehra & Ors vs Union Of India & Anr

2. Shorn of details of the previous notification in 1983 and the earlier rounds of litigation, background facts in a nutshell are as follows: On 19.2.1997, a fresh notification was issued by the Land and Building Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi under Sections 4 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) proposing to acquire the land of the appellants measuring 12 Bigha (12096 sq. yards) for development of Vasant Kunj under the planned development scheme of Delhi. Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) by award No. 2/98-99 dated 18.9.1998 assessed the market value of the land @ Rs.2,05,642.07 paise per bigha (Rs.205/-per sq.yard), adding additional interest @ 12% per annum on the market value of land and the solatium @ 30% on the market value of land and the compensation was fixed @ Rs.37,21,180.05 paise per bigha.

3. Aggrieved by the award, the appellants filed Reference Petition under Section 18 of the Act before the Additional District Judge (LAC), Delhi. In the reference court, the appellants produced four documents Exs A7 to A10-perpetual lease deeds of residential plots in Vasant Kunj, executed between September 1995 to December 1996 at the rates ranging from Rs.28,719/- to Rs.47,542/- per sq. yard. The reference court held that the lease deeds of auction of a developed plot by a public authority are not a proper guide for determining the fair market value of the acquired lands and reference court discarded the exemplars- Exs A7 to A10 lease deeds and rejected the claim of the appellants for enhancement of compensation.

4. Aggrieved by the decision of the reference court, appellants filed Land Acquisition Appeal No.149/2007 before High Court of Delhi. The High Court had taken average of the exemplars- Exs A7 to A10 and deducted 40% from the average price towards smallness of the area and further deducted one third towards development of land and fixed the market value of the land at Rs.14,974/- per sq. yard. High Court held that the appellants shall be entitled to 30% solatium on the above market value of the land under Section 23(2) of the Act and 12% of the additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. The High Court further ordered that in terms of Section 28 of the Act on the enhanced market value, the appellants shall be paid interest @ 9% per annum from 19.2.1997 i.e. date of notification under Section 4 of the Act till 18.2.1998 and thereafter @ 15% per annum till the date of deposit of compensation. It was also held that interest shall also be paid on solatium and additional amount. The appellants filed application C.M. No.735/2011 in L.A. Appeal No.149/2007 before the High Court under Sections 152 and 153 read with Section 151 C.P.C. to award Rs.48 lakhs which was paid as court fees and also prayed for award of interest under Section 34 for the enhanced compensation. The application was allowed in part by order dated 13.10.2011, granting proportionate costs to the appellants over and above Rs.20,000/- as awarded in High Court’s judgment dated 24.12.2010. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation and award of proportionate cost, the appellants are before us.

34. Consistent view taken by this Court is that one third deduction is made towards the area to be used for roads, drains, and other facilities, subject to certain variations depending upon its nature, location, extent and development around the area. Further, appropriate deduction needs to be made for development cost, laying roads, erection of electricity lines depending upon the location of the acquired land and the development that has taken place around the area.

15. The development authority will also incur considerable expenditure for development of undeveloped land into a developed layout, which includes the cost of leveling the land, cost of providing roads, underground drainage and sewage facilities, laying water lines, electricity lines and developing parks ands civil amenities, which would be about 35% of the value of the developed plot. The two factors taken together would be the “deduction for development” and can account for as much as 75% of the cost of the developed plot.

18. The position with reference to industrial layouts will be different. As the industrial plots will be large (say of the size of one or two acres or more as contrasted with the size of residential plots measuring 100 sq. m to 200 sq m), and as there will be very limited civic amenities and no playgrounds, the area to be set apart for development (for roads, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities) will be far less; and the cost to be incurred for development will also be marginally less, with the result the deduction to be made from the cost of an industrial plot may range only between 45% to 55% as contrasted from 65% to 75% for residential plots.

50. COSTS: By its judgment dated 24.12.2010, the High Court enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.14,974/- per sq. yard, but the High Court had then awarded only costs of Rs.20,000/-.

Thereafter, the appellants filed C.M. No. 735/2011, interalia, contending that they ought to have been awarded entire costs at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per sq. yard, enhanced compensation as claimed by the claimants. Appellants also claimed that the entire court fees of Rs.48 lakhs affixed on the memo of appeal be included in the costs. High Court rejected the plea of the appellants for inclusion of the entire court fees and costs at the rate of enhanced compensation for the acquired land at Rs.50,000/- per sq. yard as claimed by the appellants. But the High Court modified its order by awarding proportionate costs in favour of the appellants over and above the sum of Rs.20,000/-.

51. The appellant, party-in-person, contended that they have paid court fees of Rs.48 lakhs and High Court ignored the mandatory provisions of law in awarding costs and that court fees is an integral part of costs. It was submitted that the impugned order dated 13.10.2011 awarding “grant of proportionate costs” is not in accordance with well settled principle of law. Appellants further contended that being partly successful before the High Court, they cannot be deprived of their claim of entire court fees and the costs.

(ii) the court is not bound to do so in every case. If the court forms opinion that the claim of the claimant is extravagant or that he was so negligent in putting his case before the Collector, then the court may make a different order as regards costs and (iii) the court may in such cases direct, that some deduction be made from the costs of the claimant or that he should pay a part of the Collector’s costs.

55. Ordinarily, when a litigant succeeds in part and fails in part, the equitable order made is that he should receive proportionate costs. When considering the appellants’ claim in C.M. No. 735 of 2011, in exercise of its discretion, the High Court rightly awarded proportionate costs and accordingly directed payment of such proportionate costs of over and above Rs.20,000/- as originally ordered. Merely because the appellants claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per sq.yard, the respondents cannot be saddled with the liability of paying the entire costs and the court fees paid by the appellants. There is no improper exercise of discretion by the High Court in awarding proportionate costs and we find no merit in the claim of the appellants claiming full costs.

56. We may incidentally refer to the statement of learned Senior Counsel for the respondents that compensation amount of about Rs.40 crores has already been paid to the appellants.

57. We, therefore, do not find any merit in these appeals and the appeals are dismissed accordingly. Parties are to bear their respective costs.

…………………………..J (T.S. Thakur) …………………………..J (R. Banumathi) New Delhi;

October 17, 2014