JUDGMENT Dalveer Bhandari, J.
1. This judgment will dispose of the aforementioned Regular First Appeals. Land measuring 442 bighas 3 biswas of village Dhoolsiras was acquired by the Union of India-respondent for increasing the capacity of Najafgarh drain by a Notification dated 30.5.1979 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") dated 30.5.1979. Declaration under Section 6 was also issued on the same day. Land Acquisition Collector vide award No. 2/86-87 awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.2500/- per bigha.
2. The appellants aggrieved by the said order filed reference under Section 18 of the Act. The learned Additional District Judge by his judgment order dated 31.1.1991 disposed of the Reference Nos. 278/89, 238/89, 241/89, 226/89, 240/89, 280/89, 292/89 and 242/89. The learned Additional District Judge has enhanced the compensation to Rs.10,000/- per bigha. The learned Additional District Judge also awarded solarium on that market value, additional amount and interest etc.
3. The appellants aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, preferred appeals before this Court and prayed that the judgment and order passed by the trial court be modified by fixing the market value of the land of the appellants at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per bigha and a decree for further enhancement in the market value be passed in favor of the appellants and against the respondent with additional amount, solarium, interest and costs of the appeal.
4. The learned Additional District Judge has given detailed reasons for granting compensation at the rate of 10,000/- per bigha. We deem it appropriate to briefly refer to the findings and recovery of the learned Additional District Judge. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Additional District Judge has framed following two issues:
1.What is the effect of Delhi Land Reforms Act on the market value of land?
2.To what compensation, if any, the applicant is entitled to receive?
5. The learned Additional District Judge regarding issue No. 1 observed that the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act were applicable to the acquired land as is evident from the Award No. 2/86-87. The respondent has, however, not led any evidence. In the impugned judgment it is observed that in the absence of evidence mere applicability of the provisions of the said Act to the land in suit will have no effect on its market value and the issue was decided accordingly.
6. The second and more important issue is pertaining to compensation. The statements under Section 19 have been admitted by the appellants in these cases. Therefore, the enhanced compensation had to be fixed on the basis of the details shown in those statements as given in different Awards of Land Acquisition Collector.
7. The main contention raised by Mr. S.C. Dhamija, learned counsel for the appellant is that land of village Dhoolsiras is similar to the land of village Bharthal and as for acquisition of lands in village Bharthal, compensation of Rs.20,000/- was granted, therefore, the appellants are also entitled to the same enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per bigha.
8. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed by the appellants on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court passed in Rajender Singh vs. Union of India delivered on 25.9.1989. This relates to the compensation of the land which was acquired in Bharthal village on 6.11.1980 and compensation at the rate of Rs.21,000/- per bigha was awarded.
9. It is pertinent to mention that by a Notification dated 6.11.1980 the Union of India has acquired land in Bharthal village for the purpose of storage of oil products for Indian Oil Company, the Government Company. As the land was urgently required, the Notifications under Sections 4,6 and 17 of the Act were issued on the same date.
10. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of Vijay Kumar Kapoor & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. Dated 1st September, 1989 in which the land of Village Bharthal was acquired for the development of Palam Air Port. The Notification was issued on 3.12.1971 under Section 4 and thereafter Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 17.5.1972.
11. On the other hand, it was urged by Mr. S.S. Dalal, learned counsel for the Union of India that that lands of the appellants cannot be compared with thelands acquired in Bharthal village. It was further submitted by him that lands of villages Goela Khurd, Chhawla and Ambarhai are close to village Dhoolsiras and the potentiality of the land of all these four villages are also by and large alike.
12. The Land Acquisition Collector has awarded compensation ranging from Rs. 1,000/- to 3,000/- per bigha for the lands in those villages. The Additional District Judge enhanced the compensation ranging Rs. 2,600/- to Rs.4,600/- and the Division Bench of this Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.13,000/- per bigha. The learned Additional District Judge has considered the case rationally and analysed the detailed facts and circumstances where higher compensation for the land pertaining to the village Bharthal was justified.
13. In the instant case, admittedly, no sale deed of village Dhoolsiras was available. Therefore, the only option available for the court was to rely on the sale deeds of villages which were close and proximate to village Dhoolsiras and where the location of land was almost alike. Tekchand, one of the appellants in aforementioned appeals, in his cross examination has admitted that close to 30.5.1979 he had neither sold nor purchased any land in village Dhoolsiras. He has further admitted that there is distance of one to one and half Kilometers in between the acquired land of the appellants and the land of village Bharthal acquired for Indira Gandhi International Airport and also from the appellants' acquired land village Nangal Dewat is located at a distance of about 2 kilometers. He has further stated in his cross-examination that villageShahbad Mohmadpur may be at a distance of about 3 kilometers away from the acquired land while village Bagrola is 1 kilometers ahead of Shahbad Mohmadpur.
14. Sat Parkash, Halqa Patwari was examined as PW-1 has stated that adjoining to village Dhoolsiras, villages Bamnoli and Bharthal are located and lands of villages Dhoolsiras and Bharthal are alike. In his cross-examination he had stated that the land in these references being close to Najafgarh drain was acquired for widening of the same.
15. Similarly, land of village Bamnoli was also acquired for widening the Najafgarh drain. He further stated that the village Bamnoli is located towards south while village Bharthal is situated towards south-east of village Dhoolsiras. It may be pertinent to mention that the Land Acquisition Collector in these cases in the absence of any sale transaction in village Dhoolsiras in the year 1974 onwards had choosen to rely on the award dated 18.11.1982 of village Bamnoli for fixing the market value for the reasons that the Notification under Section 4 of the Act in regard to the land of both these villages was issued on the same date i.e. On 30.5.1979 and the land was acquired for the same purpose i.e. for widening the Najafgarh drain. It is also mentioned that both these villages are adjacent to each other and also that lands of these villages carry the same potentialities.
16. Notification under Section 4 in regard to the land of village Bharthal, covered by judgments Ex. P-2 and Ex. P-5, were issued on different dates from 30.5.1979. As a matter of fact, the Notification was issued on 6.11.1980 for storage of oil products of the Indian Oil Company.
17. The learned Additional District Judge in his judgment has mentioned that although Sat Parkash, Halqa Patwari, PW-1 in one of the appeals his examination-in-chief has stated that the lands of villages Dhoolsiras and Bharthal are alike but taking into account different dates of Notifications under Section 4 dis-similar location of lands of both these villages and also dis-similar purpose of acquisition. He was not inclined to fix the market value of the land in these references on the basis of the market value of the land in village Bharthal as determined by judgments Ex. P-2 and Ex. P-5.
18. The learned Additional District Judge has observed that there is no evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent that the lands of villages Goela Khurd, Ambarhai and Chhawla carry the same potentialities as that of the land of village Dhoolsiras. In the absence of evidence to the above effect, he did not fix the market value of the acquired land on the same basis. He categorically stated that the market value of the land in these references will have to be determined with reference to the value of the land in adjoining village Bamnoli as has been rightly done for the reasons recorded in the award by the Land Acquisition Collector. Award No. 51/82-83, village Bamnoli made by Land Acquisition Collector on 18.11.1982, Ex. R-5 and also the sale deed, Ex. R-7, dated 17.10.1980.
19. The appellants have placed reliance on the photocopy of the judgment in LAC No. 369/83 dated 23.2.1987 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, Ex. P-4. In terms of the award Ex. R-5 compensation of the acquired land was fixed at Rs.2500/- per bigha. In reference it was enhanced to Rs.10,000/- per bigha. The court observed that Ex. P-5 has no relevance in the matter of determination of the market value of the land in these references. It may be noticed that vide sale deed Ex. R-7 land measuring 3 bighas 15 biswas was sold for Rs.45,000/- thus giving the rate of sale as Rs.12000/- per bigha. From the discussions, particularly made in paras 4 & 5 of the judgment, Ex. P-4, it is clear that sale deed Ex. R-7 was also considered while fixing the market value of the land at Rs. 10,000/- per bigha in that reference. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants was that in para No.4 of the judgment the court had erroneously observed that the sale deed Ex. R-7 gave the rate of sale per bigha as Rs.11,000/- instead of Rs. 12,000/-. As a part of this contention it was further urged by him that the recitals made in the body of the sale deed Ex. R-7 make it clear that registration charges etc. were borne by the vendee, therefore, rate of sale as reflected by the sale deed Ex. R-7 is more than Rs.12,000/- per bigha.
20. The learned Additional District Judge has found considerable force in the submission as the sale deed was executed on 17.10.1980 which is close to the date of the Notification i.e. 30.5.1979. To arrive at the market value as on 30.5.1979 being the date of issue of Notification under Section 4 that value was decreased by Rs.1000/- per bigha in the judgment Ex. P-4. He observed that if one takes the value of the land covered by sale deed Ex. R-7 as a little more than Rs.12,000/- per bigha as on 17.10.1980 by decreasing the value thereof by an amount of approximately Rs. 1000/- per bigha that should come to about Rs. 11,000/- per bigha as on 30.5.1979. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in Smt. Padama Uppal vs. State of Punjab and Others, , learned counsel for the respondent contended that the value fetched for small pieces cannot be applied to the land covering a large extent, therefore, the amount of approximately Rs.11,000/- per bigha cannot be the fair market value of the acquired land in these references. According to him accessibility to land is also one of the facts to be taken into account in fixing the compensation.
21. The learned Additional District Judge has placed reliance on the statement made by Tek Chand, one of the appellants as PW-2, who at the end of his cross-examination has admitted that Bijwasan Najafgarh Road touches village Bamnoli and that road is 1/2 Kilometers away from the acquired land. Compared with the land of Dhoolsiras, land of Bamnoli has thus added advantage of being accessible by Bijwasan Najafgarh Road. Therefore, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Padma Uppal (supra) by depressing the value of the land on both the said counts by about Rs.1000/- per bigha, he fixed the market value of the appellants' land at Rs.10,000/- per bigha as on the date of the issue of the Notification under Section 4 in these references. The learned Additional District Judge, in addition to that enhancement in the market value of the land in dispute, the appellants also observed that the appellants are entitled to solarium at the rate of 30% on the market value, additional amount @ 12% per annum from the date of the Notification under Section 4 till the date of the award or the date of taking possession which ever is earlier and also interest at the rate of 9% per annum for first year from the date of the taking possession and @ 15% per annum for the period thereafter.
22. It may be pertinent to mention that during the course of hearing learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has shown the detailed map of the area. Even according to the said map, Bamnoli seems to be adjacent village to Dhoolsiras village. It may also be pertinent to mention that land belonging to villages Dhoolsiras and Bamnoli were also acquired for widening of Najafgarh drain. The appellants' main submission that they are entitled to the same compensation which has been awarded for the land of Bharthal is without any merit because the land of village Bharthal cannot be compared with the land which has been acquired of Bamnoli village. The appellants' land seems to be proximate to the land of Bamnoli and learned Additional District Judge has rightly placed reliance on this compensation paid for the land of proximate village Bamnoli acquired at the same time and awarded compensation at the same rate which was given to Village Bamnoli and for valid reasons depressed the value by Rs.1000/- per bigha.
23. In our considered opinion, the learned Additional District Judge has very carefully drafted the impugned judgment. He has taken all parameters in consideration which are required to be kept in view while determining the compensation including the ratio of the relevant judgments of the Apex Court. No interference is called for. These appeals being devoid of any merit are accordingly dismissed.
24. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.