HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Court No. - 34 1. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 232 of 2005 Appellant :- Union Of India & Others Respondent :- Anupal & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sudhanshu Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Arun Kumar, A.K.Tripathi 2. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 159 of 2006 Appellant :- Union Of India & Others Respondent :- Deepak Singh & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sudhanshu Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Arun Kumar, A.K.Tripathi 3. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 161 of 2006 Appellant :- Union Of India & Others Respondent :- Surendra Kumar & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sudhanshu Srivastava 4. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 150 of 2006 Appellant :- Union Of India & Others Respondent :- Gurucharan Singh & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sudhanshu Srivastava 5. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 148 of 2007 Appellant :- Union Of India And Others Respondent :- V.K. Kapoor And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sudhanshu Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Arun Kumar,A.K.Tripathi 6. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 146 of 2006 Appellant :- Union Of India & Others Respondent :- Ved Prakash & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sudhanshu Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Arun Kumar, A.K.Tripathi 7. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 134 of 2007 Appellant :- Union Of India And Others Respondent :- Santok Singh And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sudhanshu Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Arun Kumar, A.K.Tripathi 8. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 149 of 2007 Appellant :- Union Of India And Others Respondent :- Shiv Kumar Sharma And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sudhanshu Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Arun Kumar, A.K.Tripathi 9. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 162 of 2006 Appellant :- Union Of India & Others Respondent :- Ritu Singh & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sudhanshu Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Arun Kumar,A.K. Tripathi 10. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 107 of 2010 Appellant :- Union Of India Thru' Secy. & Another Respondent :- Amandeep & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sudhanshu Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Arun Kumar, A.K. Tripathi 11. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 147 of 2006 Appellant :- Union Of India Thru' Secy. & Another Respondent :- M/S Atma Plastic Pvt. Ltd. & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sudhanshu Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Arun Kumar,A.K. Tripathi 12. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 595 of 2005 Appellant :- Union Of India & Others Respondent :- M/S Bharat Plastic & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sudhanshu Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Arun Kumar, A.K.Tripathi 13. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 189 of 2008 Appellant :- Union Of India And Others Respondent :- Kali Charan And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sudhanshu Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Arun Kumar, A.K.Tripathi 14. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 164 of 2006 Appellant :- Union Of India & Another Respondent :- Harbhajan Singh & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sudhanshu Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Arun Kumar, A.K. Tripathi 15. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 132 of 2007 Appellant :- Union Of India And Others Respondent :- Subhash Chand Bora And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sudhanshu Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Arun Kumar, A.K. Tripathi 16. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 133 of 2007 Appellant :- Union Of India And Others Respondent :- Ganga Saran And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sudhanshu Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Arun Kumar, A.K. Tripathi 17. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 147 of 2007 Appellant :- Union Of India And Others Respondent :- Vishnu Dutt And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sudhanshu Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Arun Kumar, A.K. Tripathi 18. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 150 of 2007 Appellant :- Union Of India Thru' Secy. Home Affairs & Ors. Respondent :- Sushil Kumar & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sudhanshu Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Arun Kumar, A.K. Tripathi 19. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 163 of 2006 Appellant :- Union Of India & Another Respondent :- Dheeraj Singh & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sudhanshu Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Arun Kumar,A.K.Tripathi 20. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 135 of 2007 Appellant :- Union Of India And Others Respondent :- Gyan Singh And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sudhanshu Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Arun Kumar, A.K. Tripathi 21. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 148 of 2006 Appellant :- Union Of India & Others Respondent :- Smt. Indubala Jain & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sudhanshu Srivastava 22. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 149 of 2006 Appellant :- Union Of India & Others Respondent :- Ghanshyam Das & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sudhanshu Srivastava 23. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 151 of 2007 Appellant :- Union Of India And Others Respondent :- Jagjeet Singh And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sudhanshu Srivastava 24. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 532 of 2005 Appellant :- Union Of India & Others Respondent :- Smt. Charan Kaur & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sudhanshu Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Arun Kumar, A.K.Tripathi 25. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 153 of 2006 Appellant :- Union Of India & Others Respondent :- Sonu Singh & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sudhanshu Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Arun Kumar, A.K. Tripathi 26. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 160 of 2006 Appellant :- Union Of India & Others Respondent :- M/S Atma International & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sudhanshu Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Arun Kumar, A.K. Tripathi 27. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 108 of 2010 Appellant :- Union Of India Thru' Secy. & Another Respondent :- Bhagwan & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sudhanshu Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Arun Kumar, A.K. Tripathi 28. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 227 of 2005 Appellant :- Union Of India & Others Respondent :- Ram Phal & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sudhanshu Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Arun Kumar, A.K.Tripathi Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Mrs. Ranjana Pandya,J.
1. Heard Sri Sudhanshu Srivastava, counsel for the appellants and Sri Arun Kumar, Sri R.G. Upadhyay, Surendra Tiwari holding brief of Sri Suresh Mishra and Sri A.K. Tripathi, counsel for the respondents.
2. These 28 appeals under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1894') have arisen from a common award/Judgment and decree dated 2nd March 2001 passed by Sri A.K. Upadhyay, XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad deciding various Land Acquisition References (hereinafter referred to as the L.A.Rs.), details whereof are given in the chart, determining market value of acquired land at Rs.168/- per sq. yard. Besides, it has also allowed 30 per cent solatium on the amount of compensation under Section 23(2) and interest for various periods as per the provisions of Act, 1894.
3. The dispute before this Court raised by appellant is confined to the rate of market value determined by Reference Court. Following the procedure under Act, 1894, notification under Section 4(1) was published on 30.4.1990 and notification under Section 6 was published on 30.6.1990/ 1.7.1990. The appellants sought to acquire land for purpose of raising residential construction etc. for use of Central Industrial Security Force. The land sought to be acquired situate in Village Lalpur and Chhajarsi, Pargana Loni, Tehsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad.
4. The land holders submitted their objections before Special Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'S.L.A.O.') claiming compensation at the rate of Rs.1200/- per sq. yard but S.L.A.O., vide award dated 13.5.1992, determined market value at the rate of Rs.113.34 per sq. yard. Dissatisfied therewith Tenure-holders moved application for reference under Section 18 of Act 1894 to District Judge, Ghaziabad for determination of market value and pursuant thereto about 30 L.A.Rs. including those, which are subject matter of appeals before this Court have been decided by court below, vide impugned award. The details of various L.A.Rs. giving rise to the respective appeals are given in the following chart:- S.
N.
Appeal No. LAR No.
First Name of Respondent/Tenure Holder Rate of compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer Rate of Compensation awarded by reference court per sq. yard Date of Award by Reference Court
1. 232/05 25/94 Anupal Singh Rs.113.34 Rs.168/-
2.3.2001
2. 159/06 44/94 Deepak Singh Rs.113.34 Rs.168/-
2.3.2001
3. 161/06 36/94 Surendra Kumar Rs.113.34 Rs.168/-
2.3.2001
4. 150/06 42/94 Gurucharan Singh Rs.113.34 Rs.168/-
2.3.2001
5. 148/07 29/94 V.K. Kapoor Rs.113.34 Rs.168/-
2.3.2001
6. 146/06 46/94 Ved Prakash Rs.113.34 Rs.168/-
2.3.2001
7. 134/07 35/94 Santosh Singh Rs.113.34 Rs.168/-
2.3.2001
8. 149/07 52/94 Shiv Kumar Sharma Rs.113.34 Rs.168/-
2.3.2001
9. 162/06 33/94 Ritu Singh Rs.113.34 Rs.168/-
2.3.2001
10. 107/10 43/94 Aman Deep Rs.113.34 Rs.168/-
2.3.2001
11. 147/06 26/94 Atma Plastic Rs.113.34 Rs.168/-
2.3.2001
12. 595/05 27/94 M/s Basant Plasto Chemicals Ltd Rs.113.34 Rs.168/-
2.3.2001
13. 189/08 59/94 Kali Charan Rs.113.34 Rs.168/-
2.3.2001
14. 164/06 31/94 Harbhajan Singh Rs.113.34 Rs.168/-
2.3.2001
15. 132/07 32/94 Subhash Chand Rs.113.34 Rs.168/-
2.3.2001
16. 133/07 51/94 Ganga Saran Rs.113.34 Rs.168/-
2.3.2001
17. 147/07 53/94 Vishnu Dutt Rs.113.34 Rs.168/-
2.3.2001
18. 150/07 34/94 Sushil Kumar Rs.113.34 Rs.168/-
2.3.2001
19. 163/06 30/94 Dheeraj Singh Rs.113.34 Rs.168/-
2.3.2001
20. 135/07 37/94 Gyan Singh Rs.113.34 Rs.168/-
2.3.2001
21. 148/06 41/94 Smt. Indu Bala Jain Rs.113.34 Rs.168/-
2.3.2001
22. 149/06 63/94 Ghanshyam Rs.113.34 Rs.168/-
2.3.2001
23. 151/07 38/94 Jagjeet Singh Rs.113.34 Rs.168/-
2.3.2001
24. 532/05 45/94 Smt. Charan Kaur Rs.113.34 Rs.168/-
2.3.2001
25. 153/06 37/94 Sonu Singh Rs.113.34 Rs.168/-
2.3.2001
26. 160/06 40/94 M/s Atma International Pvt. Ltd.
Rs.113.34 Rs.168/-
2.3.2001
27. 108/10 46/94 Bhagwan Rs.113.34 Rs.168/-
2.3.2001
28. 227/05 48/94 Ram Phal Rs.113.34 Rs.168/-
2.3.2001
5. The S.L.A. O. relied on the sale deed exempler dated 12.5.1989 to make its award. Before Reference Court, the land owners supported their case for claiming higher rate of compensation on the ground that the acquired land is for the purpose of raising construction of unit of Central Industrial Security Force. The land on the western side is connected with Indrapuram Residential Scheme and Vaishali Residential Scheme of Ghaziabad Development Authority and on the other side of bye pass, southern side, there is already developed area of NOIDA. Delhi-Ghaziabad Border is just one to two kilo meter away from acquired land and Connaught Place, New Delhi is just at 15 minutes' distance from the acquired land. There is a lot of development potential in the land and looking to already existing development in the vicinity, the market value ought to have been determined at Rs.1200/- per sq. yard.
6. The above appellants per contra sought to support the award of S.L.A.O. and contended that it has rightly determined on the basis of a sale deed which was quite near to the date of the acquisition notification under Section 4.
7. The land owners relied on 7 documents filed as Paper No. 9 (c) to 16 (c) which included paper no. 10 (c), an agreement dated 14.12.1990 where under the consideration agreed between parties was Rs.175/- per sq. yard. It has been rejected by Reference Court holding that it is only an agreement to sell and has been executed after eight months from the date of notification published under Section 4(1), hence, not reliable. There was another exemplar paper no. 16 (c) whereby Har Bhajan Singh and Gyan Singh transferred land at Khasra no. 67 area 0-8 bishwa 6 biswansi at Village Lalpur in favour of Sardar Jagjeet Singh at a consideration of Rs.150/- per sq. yard. However, this exemplar was relied by Reference Court in the light of other relevant factors like existing developed location of the area etc.
8. With respect to development in the vicinity, court below found that it was admitted to both the parties, and recorded finding as under:- ^^;g rF; Hkh fufoZZokn gS fd iz'uxr Hkwfe ds if'pe fn'kk esa feyh gqbZ th0Mh0, dh bUnzkiqje vkoklh; ;kstuk o oS'kkyh vkoklh; ;kstuk igys ls gh gS rFkk ckbZ ikl dh nwljh vksj nf{k.k esa uks,Mk dk fodflr {ks= igys gh fLFkr gS rFkk iz'uxr Hkwfe fnYyh ckMZj ls ,d nks fdeh dh nwjh ij fLFkr gS vkSj ogka ls dukV Iysl dh nwjh vf/kdre 15 feuV esa r; dh tk ldrh gSA (12) oknh lk{kh ih0 Mcyw0 1 us vius c;ku esa dgk fd xzke ykyiqj o Ntkjlh dh Hkwfe dk vtZu ,d gh lkFk gqvk gSA xzke eduiqj o eghmnnhuiqj dukoyh dh Hkwfe dk vtZu gekjh tehu ls igys gks pqdk Fkk tgka ij xkft;kckn vkokl fodkl o th Mh ,dh dkyksuh fodflr gks pqdh FkhA xzke Ntkjlh o ykyiqj esa Hkh tehu NksVs&2 Hkw [k.Mksa esa fcd jgh FkhA vftZr tehu us'kuy gkbZos 24 ds ,d rjQ gS rFkk nwljh vksj uks,Mk ds fodkflr lsDVj LFkkfir gSA vftZr tehu Hkkjr dh jkt/kkuh ls ek= 5&6 fdeh0 dh nwjh ij gSa ------- (13) ..... iz'uxr lanHkZ ls lEcfU/kr vfHkfu.kZ; dk ;fn voyksdu fd;k tk; rks ;g Li"V gS fd iz'uxr Hkwfe dh mikns;rk dks Lo;a ,l ,y , vks }kjk ekuk x;k gS vius vfHkfu.kZ; ds i`"B 7 ij Hkwfe vtZu dysDVj }kjk Hkwfe dks fodflr {ks= esa gksus ds lkFk 2 vkoklh; {kerk okyh Hkwfe ekuk gSA ...** ^^iz'uxr Hkwfe ykyiqj o Ntkjlh esa fLFkr gS nksuksa xzke ,d gh cUnkscLr lfdZy ds gS nksuksa xzkeksa dh iz'uxr Hkwfe feyh gqbZ gS ,oa blesa fujUrjrk gSA ;g leLr {ks= xkft;kckn fodkl izkf/kdj.k ds vurxZr gS ftldk fu/kkZfjr mi;ksx vkoklh; gSA nksuksa xzkeksa dh if'pe lhek ij xkft;kckn fodkl izkf/kdj.k dh o`gn bUnzktiqje vkoklh; ;kstuk dk fuekZ.k dk;Z izxfr esa gSa xzke ykyiqj xSj vkckn xzke gS tks Ntkjlh xzke lHkk esa lfEefyr gS us'kuy gkbos 24 nksuksa xzzkeksa ds chp ls xqtj jgh gS nksuksa rjQ Hkwfe lery gS vkSj lMd dh mpkbZ dh vis{kk 10&12 QqV esa T;knk fupkbZ ij gSA bUnzkiqje ;kstuk dk eq[; izHkko lMd ds mRrjh Hkkx tgkW iz'uxr Hkwfe fLFkr gS ij gh eq[;r% iMk gSA iz'uxr Hkw Hkkx dh fo'ks"krk, Hkh mYysf[kr dh x;h gSA vkSj ;g mYys[k fd;k x;k gS fd blds if'pe lhek ij xkft;kckn fodkl izkf/kdj.k dh o`gr bUnzkiqje vkoklh; ;kstuk fodflr gks jgh gSA bl dkj.k blds iwoZ esa nwj nwj HkkSfed {kerk vkoklh; gks x;h gSA izkf/kdj.k ds ekLVj Iyku jksM ds dkj.k vftZr {ks=Qy yxHkx nks cjkcj Hkkxksa esa cjkcj foHkkftr gksxk vkSj nksuksa Hkkxksa ds chp fodflr ekxZ gksxkA vftZr Hkw Hkkx esa nf{k.k esa 45 ehVj pksMk us'kuy gkbZos 24 fLFkr gSA xzke ykyiqj esa igys ls gh lgdkjh vkokl lfefr Fkh bl izdkj vf/kxzghr Hkwfe dh {kerk O;kid gksus ds lkFk gh lkFk eq[; vkcknh {kerk gSA xzke ykyiqj dh Hkwfe eq[; lMd ds fdukjs mRrjh lhek rd QSyh gqbZ gSA vr% nksuksa xzkeksa dh Hkwfe esa fujUrjrk ds mijkUr Hkh xzke ykyiqj dh Hkwfe fLFkfr dh n`f"V ls vPNh gSA xzke ykyiqj dh iz'uxr Hkwfe bUnzkiqje vkoklh; ;kstuk dh Hkwfe ls vis{kkd`r fudV gksus ds dkj.k vis{kkd`r vf/kd ewY;oku gSA rnkuqlkj fLFkfr mi;ksfxrk {kerk ,oa fdLe Hkwfe ds vk/kkj ij xzke ykyiqj dh Hkwfe Ntkjlh dh vis{kk vf/kd ewY;okugSA bl izdkj ,l0 ,y0 ,0 vks0 }kjk Hkh iz'uxr Hkwfe dh fo'ks"krk ds lEcU/k esa Li"V mYys[k fd;k x;k gS ftlls Li"V gS fd iz'uxr Hkwfe fodflr {ks= esa gSA** "This fact is also undisputed that adjacent to land in question towards west, there is already residential scheme of G.D.A., namely, Indirapuram Residential Scheme and Vaishali Residential Scheme and on the other side of bye pass towards south, already developed area of Noida exists and the disputed land is situated at a distance of 1-2 kilometer away from Delhi border and there from distance of Canaught Place can be covered maximum in fifteen minutes. (12) Plaintiff P.W. 1 has stated in his statement that land of Lalpur and Chhajarasi has been acquired simultaneously. Acquisition of land of Makanpur and Mahiuddinpur had already taken place before acquisition of our land where colonies of Ghaziabad Awas Vikas and Ghaziabad Development Authority had already been developed. In Villages Chhajarasi and Lalpur also, the land was being sold in small pieces. The acquired land lies on the one side of Highway-24 and on the other side developed sectors of NOIDA exist. The acquired land is situated only 5-6 kilometers away from the capital of India... (13) .....If the award related to references in question is perused, it would be clear that utility of the land in question has been admitted by S.L.A.O himself at page 7 of the award that the land acquired by Collector is situated in developed area having potentiality of residential purpose...." "Disputed land is situated in Lalpur and Chajarasi. Both the villages exist in same settlement circle. The disputed lands of both the villages are adjacent with continuity. This entire area falls under Ghaziabad Development Authority which is meant for residential use. Towards the west of both of the villages, the construction work under the large Indrapuram Residential Scheme of Ghaziabad Development Authority is in progress. is in progress. Village Lalpur is uninhabited village which is included in Gram Sabha Chhajarasi. National Highway 24 passes through midst of both the villages. The land on both the sides is even and is 10-12 feet below the road level. Main effect of Indrapuram Colony has been on the northern side of the road. Specialties of disputed land has also been described. And this has also been described that towards the west, large Indrapuram Residential Scheme of Ghaziabad Development Authority is being developed. On account of this, towards the far east, the potentiality of land has become residential. On account of master plan road of the Authority, the acquired area would be divided into two two equal parts and in between the two parts, there would be developed road. 45 meter wide National High Way-24 is towards the south of acquired land. There had already been Cooperative Housing Society in Village Lalpur and, therefore, the potentiality of acquired land besides being wide has mainly residential capacity. The land of village Lalpur is extended along with the main road towards north limit. Despite continuity in the land of both the villages, the land of Lalpur is better from the location point of view. The disputed land of village Lalpur being closer to the land of Indrapuram Housing scheme is comparatively more valuable. Accordingly, from the point of view of location, utility and quality of the land, the land of Lalpur is more valuable than that of Chhajarasi. Thus, even by S.L.A.O., there has been categorical finding about the quality of the disputed land from which it is clear that the disputed land is situated in developed area." (English Translation by the Court.)
9. Having said so, the court below found that the exemplar sale deed was almost an year old and, therefore, there was a justification of allowing 12 per cent annual increase in the price and that is how the rate was determined at Rs. 168/- per sq. yard.
10. Counsel for the appellants contended that increase of rate at 12 per cent per annum where the exemplar is old is highly excessive and not justified. The determination of market value by Reference Court at Rs.168/- per sq. yard has been assailed by appellant before this Court only on the ground that the increase by 12 per cent per annum is on higher side since it ought to be 7.5 per cent to 10 per cent. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the court below has increased rate instead of applying deduction and that is how it has committed manifest error of law. That is the only objection which has been taken at the instance of appellant to assail the impugned awards.
11. Thus, the only question we have to consider is, "whether 12 per cent annual increase followed by court below is palpably erroneous and unreasonable so as to warrant our interference."
12. In this regard, we may refer to the decision in General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited Vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and another, (2008) 14 SCC 745 wherein the Court in paragraph 8 has said:- "8. Having gone through the aforesaid judgment, we find that the court has not laid down any rule of thumb that in all circumstances, the increase can be only 10 to 15 % in urban or semi-urban area, on the contrary, in para 13 and 14, court said as under:- "13. Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors: situation of the land, nature of development in surrounding area, availability of land for development in the area, and the demand for land in the area. In rural areas, unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, without any sudden spurts or jumps. On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster, where the demand for land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas. In some pockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties.
14. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any development and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in uban/semi-urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore, if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it, that is, about 5%to 7.5% per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be applied would depend upon the same."
13. If the developmental activities, as also the construction activities in a particular area are on a great pace, escalation in market price can be at much higher rate and in big cities it has been found to the extent of 13 to 15% or more per year during nineties. Regarding development and construction activities in Ghaziabad, the learned counsel for appellant did not dispute that pace of developmental activities therein was very fast in nineties and there was a multi-fold increase in the price within a very short time. It has continued even thereafter. These facts are also noticed in the award/judgment of Reference Court, still it has taken increase to a reasonable lower side of only 12%.
14. It is not in dispute that the facts stated by Reference Court in the impugned award relating to already developed nearby area are correct. It is also not disputed that acquired land falls in an area, which is already well developed. Thus, there is no justification for any deduction as held in Bhagwathulla Samanna & others Vs. Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer Visakhapatnam Municipality, AIR 1992 SC 2298. It is also not disputed that there was no error in relying on the sale deed dated 12.5.1989 which was almost an year old than the date of notification under Section 4(1).
15. In our view, looking to the entire facts and circumstances, neither the approach adopted by court below nor the market value determined by it, can be said to be excessive, unreasonable or unjustified. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned award.
16. We answer the question regarding rate of market value in favour of claimant-respondents and against appellants holding that Reference Court has rightly determined market value at the rate of Rs.168/- per sq. yard. No other point has been argued.
17. The appeals, therefore, are devoid of merit and are dismissed with costs throughout. Date:-20.7.2015 Ram Murti