JUDGMENT Devinder Gupta, J.
1. The subject matter of these appeals is determination of the amount of compensation payable to the claimants with respect to the land situated in village Masjid Moth acquired through three separate notifications. For convenience sake and in order to avoid repetition of same and similar evidence again and again in different cases, these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment.
2. For the execution of the Interim General Plan for Greater Delhi, land situated in village Masjid Moth was acquired through notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on 13.9.1957. The Collector on 31.7.1961 made his award No. 1175 offering compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 3,500/- and Rs. 3,000/- per bigha respectively for two categories of land. Feeling dissatisfied the claimants sought reference and the Reference Court by its award dated 31.1.1970 answered the reference. Feeling dissatisfied Union of India filed RFA No. 679/70 seeking reduction in the amount of compensation. Claimants filed cross objections (CM. 1088/91) seeking enhancement. Appeal of Union of India was dismissed on 18.11.1998. As nobody appeared on that date on behalf of the claimants, cross objections were also dismissed along with an application, which had been filed by the claimants seeking amendment to the cross objections. On application being moved by the claimants, cross objections were revived and thus the cross objections (CM. 1099/91) remained to be decided, which are being decided by this judgment. The claimants' prayer is to allow compensation at the rate of Rs. 32,000/- per bigha for the acquired land.
3. For Planned Development of Delhi under the general notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 13.11.1959 land situated in numerous revenue estates in Delhi was sought to be acquired. Land situated in village Masjid Moth was also sought to be acquired under the same notification. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 3.3.1962. Collector, Land Acquisition made his award No. 1324, who offered compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,500/- and Rs. 3,000/- per bigha respectively for blocks A and B lands. The Reference Court by the impugned award dated 22.5.1976 proceeded to determine fair market value of all categories of land situated in village Masjid Moth, acquired through notification dated 13,11,1959, at Rs. 8,200/- per bigha. In RFA No. 307/76 the claim is to award compensation at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per bigha.
4. Yet another notification was issued on 24.5.1961 under Section 4 of the Act notifying further land situated in village Masjid Moth for being acquired for Planned Development of Delhi, Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 27.7.1961. Collector, Land Acquisition, on 19.2.1962, proceeded to make his award No. 1268 offering compensation for all categories of land at Rs. 3,000/- per bigha. Claimants sought reference. The Reference Court by a common award disposed of number of reference petitions and proceeded to classify the entire land of the revenue estate of village Masjid Moth in five categories and accordingly determined fair market value at Rs. 10,000/-; Rs. 9,000/-; Rs. 8,000/-; Rs. 7,500/- and Rs. 7,000/- per bigha. Three appeals under consideration (R.F.A. Nos. 212, 213 and 214 of 1972) are for further enhancement in the amount of compensation wherein claim made is for compensation at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per bigha.
5. We have heard learned Counsels for the parties and been taken through the entire record.
6. As regards notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 3.9.1957 the matter now stands concluded inasmuch as there has already been determination of the amount of compensation by a Reference Court in L.A.C. No. 418/66. Shri Jagdish Chandra, the then Additional District Judge, Delhi assessed the fair market value of the land acquired through notification dated 3.9.1957 at Rs. 13,000/- per bigha with respect to land situated in village Masjid Moth. This determination of the amount of compensation was accepted by Union of India and compensation has also been paid. Further appeal was not carried by Union of India. These facts were not disputed. Having perused the record, we find that there is no difference in the location, quality and potentiality of the land, which was subject matter of LAC No. 418/66 and the land, which is subject matter of cross objections (CM. 1099/91).
There cannot be any discrimination in the matter of payment of compensation, when it is found that similar lands having same potentiality and located within the same revenue estates are acquired under the same notification or same purpose. Accordingly, we are of the view that the claimants in cross objections (CM. 1099/ 91) are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 13,000/- per bigha.
7. As regards the award of the Reference Court made on 22.12.1971, which has given rise to the three appeals (RFA Nos. 212 to 214 of 1972) determining the amount of compensation for the land acquired through notification dated 24.5.1961, the same is based upon another award of the Reference Court in LAC No. 82/69, Babu Lal v. Union of India, (Ex. A. 34). Babu Lal's case pertains to determination of the amount of compensation for land comprised in Khasra Nos. 450, 456, 444, 447, 455 and 461 situated in the revenue estate of Kotla Mubarakpur Against the award of the Reference Court in Babu Lal's case further appeal was filed to this Court by Union of India, i.e. RFA No. 425/70, Union of India v. Babu Lal and Others. In the said appeal determination of compensation payable for the land situated in village Kotla Mubarakpur acquired under the same notification dated 24.5.1961 for the same public purpose was made. The Collector, Land Acquisition had in his award offered compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per bigha. Reference Court held Rs. 4,000/- to be the fair market value. Division Bench of this Court in the said appeal (RFA No. 425/70) categorized the land in two blocks. First block being of such kind of land, which was by the side of any road and the remaining land being in the second block not contiguous to any road. While determining the amount of compensation, reliance was placed on the decision in another judgment of this Court in RFA No. 479/69, Gurmukh Singh Chawla v. Union of India, decided on 28.4.1984. In the said judgment, Division Bench had categorised the land situated within the revenue estate of village Masjid Moth, which was acquired for public purpose through notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 7.3.1962.
8. In Gurmukh Singh Chawla's case (supra), the Collector, Land Acquisition had made two categories of land, namely, blocks A and B for which compensation was offered at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- and Rs. 3,000/- per bigha respectively. Division Bench maintained two categories, one abutting any road and other not abutting any road and assessed the market value of Rs. 40/- per sq. yard and Rs. 35/- per sq. yard respectively.
9. In Babu Lal's case (supra), relying upon the said decision of Gurmukh Singh's case (supra), and analysing evidence in the said case same valuation was adopted for the land acquired through notification issued few months earlier i.e. on 24.5.1961. Market value was determined at Rs. 35/- per sq. yard for the land not abutting the road and Rs. 40/- per sq. yard for the land abutting the road.
10. Submission of learned Counsel for the appellant was that the appellant's land was abutting the road, therefore, market value deserves to be fixed at Rs. 40/- per sq. yard. Reference has also been made to the evidence in this case that the land of claimant Dharam Pal was situated at two places but in compact blocks. One block lying on the West of the road bifurcating village Masjid Moth into two portions and other block lying on the East of the road. Therefore, it was submitted that the appellant deserves to be allowed compensation at the rate of Rs. 40/- per sq. yard for which purpose reference was also made to the Aks Shajra. We have perused the Aks Shajra and been taken through the entire record. In Babu Lal's case (supra), this Court while referring to Gurmukh Singh Chawla's case observed:
"There is also another case which has been cited before us, which pertains to acquisition of land in Masjid Moth, which is the contiguous revenue estate to village Kotla Mubarakpur. The revenue estate of Masjid Moth also abuts on the developed colony of New Delhi South Extension Part II. This appeal was preferred by Gurmukh Singh Chawla and others and a number of Regular First Appeals were disposed of by a common judgment dated 28.5.1969 being RFA No. 479 of 1969; RFA No. 433 of 1969; RFA No. 502 of 1969; RFA No. 435 of 1969; RFA No. 130 of 1972; RFA No. 123 of 1972; RFA No. 283 of 1975 and RFA No. 272 of 1997. Keeping in view the advantages of location of land with respect to different plots in question in that appeal, this Court granted Rs. 35/- per sq. yard for the land which did not abut on Ring Road, and Rs. 40/- per sq. yard for the land which abutted on the Ring Road."
11. Babu Lal's case was pertaining to the determination of amount of compensation for the land situated in village Kotla Mubarakpur whereas Gurmukhji Singh Chawla's case was pertaining to determination of the amount of compensation for the land situated in village Masjid Moth. In Gurmukh Singh's case land was acquired through subsequent notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 7.3.1962 wherein, as noticed above, market value was determined at Rs. 40/- per sq. yard for the land abutting the road and Rs. 35/- per sq. yard for the land not abutting the road. The road in the case of Gurmukh Singh Chawla has been referred to as the Ring Road. No part of the appellant's land was abutting the Ring Road. Therefore, submission of learned Counsel for the appellant that Rs. 40/- per sq. yard be fixed as the market value for the appellant's land cannot be accepted. Relying upon the decisions aforementioned in Gurmukh Singh Chawla and Babu Lal's cases, we are of the view that the fair market value of all the categories of land of the appellants situated in village Masjid Moth acquired through notification dated 24.5.1961 was Rs. 35/- per sq. yard and the appellant deserves to be paid compensation accordingly.
12. The question, which now remains to be decided is about the fair market value payable for the land acquired through notification issued on 13.11.1959.
13. The land, which was acquired through notification dated 13.9.1957 has been assessed at Rs. 13,000/- per bigha, in other words Rs. 13/- per sq. yard being the fair market value, whereas for the land acquired through notification issued on 24.5.1961, fair market value has been determined at Rs. 35/- per sq. yard. It has been judicially noticed in a number of decisions of this Court that prices of the lands in and around Delhi started increasing somewhere in 1955. The rate of increase has been taken differently in different parts of city depending upon its location and the demand for the land. Kotla Mubarakpur, by the very nature of the market value, as determined, would suggest that there definitely was trend in rise of prices but the extent of the rise of prices is the question. In the absence of any other material different yardsticks were adopted by this Court in fixing fair market value of the land acquired by a subsequent notification when the market value of the land acquired under an earlier notification stood determined. The criteria adopted was to allow an increase to the extent of Rs. 1,000 /- per bigha per year, which was later on held to be not workable since increase had to be on some percentage basis or some ratio of the market value and not a lumpsum. In Bedi Ram v. Union of India and Anr., , 6% p.a. was taken as fair increase for the period prior to 1969. Subsequent to 1969 till 1973 fair increase was held at 10% and thereafter at 12% p.a. In the instant case, both the criteria may not hold good, in view of the fact that the land, which was acquired earlier in 1957 market value was assessed at Rs. 13/- per sq. yard. For the subsequent acquisition, which took place after about 3% years market value was assessed at Rs. 35,000/- per bigha. Taking the mean of these two market values would also not be fair criteria. We are of the view that taking into consideration other circumstances, it will be fair that in case we hold Rs. 20/- per sq. yard to be the fair market value for the land, which was acquired through notification dated 13.11.1959.
14. Consequently, the appeals and cross objections are allowed with proportionate costs holding the claimants entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 13/-per sq. yard for the land acquired through notification dated 3.9.1957; at the rate of the Rs. 20/- per sq. yard for the land acquired through notification dated 13.11.1959 and at the rate of Rs. 35/- per sq. yard for the land acquired through notification dated 24.5.1961. Over and above the enhancement market value, the claimants will be paid other statutory benefits, as allowed by the impugned awards of the Reference Court.
15. Interest will also be paid to the claimants on solarium in view of decision of Supreme Court in Sunder v. Union of India, 93, (2001) DLT 569.
16. The applications filed by the appellants praying for leading additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27, CPC have been rendered infructuous and stands disposed of.