New Okhala Industrial ... vs Champi And Ors.
2015 Latest Caselaw 1414 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

A.F.R.
 
Reserved  
 

 
Court No. - 34
 

 
1. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 562 of 2001
 

 
Appellant :- New Okhala Industrial Development Authority
 
Respondent :- Champi And Ors.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S.Awasthi,A.K. Misra,A.K. Yadav,Amit Manohar,Ramendra Pratap Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- B.P. Singh,Madan Mohan
 

 
2. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 1006 of 1999
 

 
Appellant :- New Okhla Industrial Development Authority
 
Respondent :- Gyan Chand & Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S. Awasthi,A.K. Misra,A.K. Yadav,Amit Manohar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- B.P.Singh,A.N.Verma,Dr.Madhu Tandon,G.N.Verma,H.M.B.Singh,Madan Mohan
 

 
3. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 555 of 2001
 

 
Appellant :- New Okhla Industrial Development
 
Respondent :- Niyadar And Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S.Awasthi,A.K. Misra,A.K. Yadav,Amit Manohar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Madan Mohan,V.P. Singh
 

 
4. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 557 of 2001
 

 
Appellant :- New Okhla Industrial Development Authority
 
Respondent :- Yadu & Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S.Awasthi,A.K. Misra,A.K. Yadav,Amit Manohar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- B.P. Singh,Madan Mohan
 

 
5. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 558 of 2001
 

 
Appellant :- New Okhla Industrial Development Authority
 
Respondent :- Ami Chand & Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S.Awasthi,A.K. Misra,A.K. Yadav,Amit Manohar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- B.P. Singh,V.P. Singh
 

 
6. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 560 of 2001
 

 
Appellant :- New Okhla Industrial Development Authority
 
Respondent :- Nanda & Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S.Awasthi,A.K. Yadav,Amit Manohar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- B.P.Singh,Madan Mohan,V.P. Singh
 

 
7. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 556 of 2000
 

 
Appellant :- New Okhla Industrial Development Authority
 
Respondent :- Dalip Singh & Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S. Awasthi,A.K. Mishra,A.K. Yadav,Amit Manohar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- B.P. Singh,A.N. Verma,Dr. Madhu Tandon,G.N. Verma
 

 
8. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 562 of 2000
 

 
Appellant :- New Okhla Industrial Development Authority
 
Respondent :- Sri Ram & Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S. Awasthi,A.K. Yadav,Ajay Kr. Mishra,Amit Manohar,Ashiwini Kr. Mishra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.N. Verma,Dr. Madhu Tandon,Madan Mohan
 

 
9. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 1005 of 1999
 

 
Appellant :- New Okhla Industrial Development Authority
 
Respondent :- Kiran Pal And Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- U.S. Awashthi,A.K. Yadav,Ajai Kumar Mishra,Amit Manohar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- B.P. Singh,A.N. Verma,B.Malik,Dr. Madhu Tandan,G.N. Verma,H.M.B. Singh,Smt. Seema Shukla
 

 
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. 

Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J)

1. All these appeals have arisen from award/judgment and decree dated 20.5.1993, passed by Sri Nepal Singh, Vth Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad adjudicating a number of Land Acquisition References including the ones with which we are concerned in these appeals, i.e. Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 2/1986, 6/1986, 153/1986, 20/1986, 7/1986, 47/1986, 154/1986, 37/1986 and 15/1986. First appeals and Land Acquisition References involved in the concerned appeal as also cross objection if any are detailed in the following chart:-

Sl. No.

First Appeal No.

Land Acquisition Reference No.

Cross Appeal/ objection if any filed by whom.

Rate claimed in Cross objection (Rs.) per sq. yard

562 of 2001

02 of 1986

Cross Objection No. Nil of 1996 filed by Smt. Champi Devi

40/-

1006 of 1999

6 of 1986

Cross Appeal No. 277273 of 2014, Pramod Kumar and 6 others.

Cross Appeal No. 277277 of 2014, Sonu Sharma and Monu Sharma

297/-

555 of 2001

153 of 1986

Cross objection no. Nil of 1996 filed by legal heirs of Niyadar

40/-

557 of 2001

20 of 1986

Cross objection no. Nil filed by Yadu and others

40/-

558 of 2001

7 of 1986

Cross objection No. Nil of 1996 filed by legal heirs of Amichand and others

40/-

560 of 2001

47 of 1986

Cross objection No. Nil of 1996 filed by Nanda and three others

40/-

556 of 2000

154 of 1986

None

562 of 2000

37 of 1986

None

1005 of 1999

15 of 1986

None

2. In these appeals cross objection/cross appeals in some of them there are some substitution application in order to bring legal heirs of the deceased party along with delay condonation application. As agreed by learned counsel for parties, delay in filing substitution application, if any, is condoned. All substitution applications are allowed. Let substitution be carried out in respective appeals/cross objections/cross appeals during the course of the day. Abatement of appeal, if any, is hereby set aside.

3. The Reference Court has determined market value of the acquired land for the purpose of compensation at the rate of Rs. 34/- per sq. yard.

4. The appellants- New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred as 'NOIDA') is a statutory authority, for whose benefit land in question was acquired by State of U.P.

5. A notification, under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter referred as the 'Act' 1894) was published on 5.1.1982 proposing to acquire certain land including disputed one, situated in village Gijhore, Tehsil Dadri, district Ghaziabad. The possession of acquired land was taken on 30.4.1982. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred as 'SLAO') gave its award on 24.1.1985 determining market value of claimants' land, for the purpose of compensation at Rs. 9/ per sq. yard. On being dis-satisfied therewith, the claimant-respondent along with several other tenure-holders, moved application for making reference to District Judge, under Section 18 of Act 1894, pursuant whereof, the impugned award has been given, whereby the court below has determined market value for the purpose of compensation of acquired land, at Rs. 34/ per sq. yard. It has also allowed 30% solatium under Section 23(2) and interest at different rates as provided under Act, 1894 on the amount of compensation.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant-NOIDA contended that the appeal is confined to rate on which market value has been determined by court below i.e. Rs. 34/ per sq. yard. He contended that the market value determined by court below is highly excessive, unjust and unreasonable and the impugned award to that extent deserves to be set aside.

7. Per contra, Sri Madan Mohan, learned counsel for the claimants-respondent contended that the market value determined by court below is on lower side and suggestion made by learned counsel for the appellant that it is excessive is incorrect. He, therefore, submitted that higher rate should be allowed by this Court and the cross appeal/cross objection should be allowed.

8. From the rival submissions the two points for determination to decide the appeal would be "whether market value determined by Court below at Rs. 34/ per sq. yard is just, valid and reasonable?"; and "whether the claimant-respondents are entitled for determination of market value at a rate more than Rs. 34/- per sq. yard.

9. Before dealing with the rival submission, it would be appropriate to have a glance over general legal principles which have been set in last few decades covering the question, how and in what manner market value of acquired land should be determined.

10. An award passed by Land Acquisition Officer is like an offer and not to be treated as a judgment of trial Court. It is well settled, when the land holders are not agreeable to accept the offer made by Land Acquisition Officer, they have a right to approach Collector under section 18 of the Act, 1894, by a written application, for referring the matter to Court, for determination of the amount of compensation or if there is any dispute regarding measurement of land for that also. In the present case the reference in question were made at the instance of claimants for determining the amount of compensation.

11. In Chimanlal Hargovindas Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer (1988) 3, S.C.C 751, the Court has said that a reference is like a suit which is to be treated as an original proceeding. The claimant is in the position of a plaintiff who has to show that the price offered for his land in the Award is inadequate. However, for the said purpose the Court would not consider the material, relied upon by Land Acquisition Officer in Award, unless the same material is produced and proved before the Court. The Reference Court does not sit in appeal over the Award of Land Acquisition Officer. The material used by Land Acquisition Officer is not open to be used by the Court suo moto unless such material is produced by the parties and proved independently before the Reference Court. Determination of market value has to be made as per market rate prevailing on the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of Act, 1894. The basic principle which has to be followed by Reference Court for determining market value of land, as if, the valuer i.e. the court is a hypothetical purchaser, willing to purchase land from the open market and is prepared to pay a reasonable price, as on the crucial day, i.e. date of publication of notification under section 4 of the Act, 1894. The willingness of vendor to sale land on reasonable price shall be presumed. The Court, therefore, would co-relate market value reflected in the most comparable instance which provides the index of market value. Only genuine instances would be taken into account. Sometimes even post-notification instances may be taken into account if they are very proximate, genuine and acquisition itself has not motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of the resultant improvement in development prospects. Proximity from the angle and from situation angle would be relevant considerations to find out most comparable instances out of the genuine instances. From identified instances which would provide index of market value, price reflected therein may be taken as norm and thereafter to arrive at the true market value of land under acquisition, suitable adjustment by plus and minus factors has to be made. In other words a balance sheet of plus and minus factors may be drawn and the relevant factors may be valuated in terms of price variation as a prudent purchaser would do. The market value of land under acquisition has to be deduced by loading the price reflected in the instances taken for plus factors and unloading for minus factors.

12. Some of the illustrative examples of plus and minus factors given by the Court in Chimanlal Hargovinddas (supra) are as under:

Plus factors

Minus factors.

Smallness of size

Largeness of area

Proximity to a road.

Situation in the interior at a distance from the road.

Frontage on a read.

Narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth.

Nearness to developed area

Lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up.

Regular shape.

Remoteness from developed locality.

Level vis-a-vis

Some special disadvantageous factor which would deter a purchaser.

Special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage.

13. The size of the land, therefore, would constitute an important factor to determine market value. It cannot be doubted that small size plot may attract a large number of persons being within their reach which will not be possible in respect of large block of land wherein incumbent will have to incur extra liability in preparing a lay out and carving out roads, leaving open space, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers etc. The Court said that in such matters, the factors can be discounted by making deduction by way of an allowance at an appropriate rate ranging between 20% to 50%, to account for land, required to be set apart for carving out road etc and for plotting out small plots.

14. The concept of smaller and larger plots should be looked into not only from the angle as to what area has been acquired, but also the number of land holders and size of their plots. When we talk of concept of prudent seller and prudent buyer, we cannot ignore the fact that in the category of prudent seller the individual land holder will come. It is the area of his holding which will be relevant for him and not that of actual total and collective large area which is sought to be acquired.

15. In V.M. Salgoacar & Brother Ltd Vs. Union of India ( 1995) 2 S.C.C 302, the land acquired by notification dated 6.7.1990 in village Chicalim near Goa Airport belonged to a single owner. The Court observed when land is sold out in smaller plots, there may be a rising trend in the market, of fetching higher price in comparison to the plot which are much higher in size. Having said so the Court further said "though the small plots ipso facto may not form the basis per se to determine the compensation, they would provide foundation for determining the market value. On its basis, giving proper deduction, the market value ought to be determined".

16. Again in Shakuntalabai ( Smt) and others Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1996 (2) S.C.C 152, 20 acres of land in Akola town was sought to be acquired by notification published on 11.8.1965 under Section 4(1) of Act, 1894 which was also owned by a single person. It is in this context the Court said "the Reference Court committed manifest error in determining compensation on the basis of sq. ft. When land of an extent of 20 acres is offered for sale in an open market, no willing and prudent purchaser would come forward to purchase that vast extent of land on sq. ft. basis. Therefore, the Reference Court has to consider valuation sitting on the armchair of a willing prudent hypothetical vendee and to put a question to itself whether in given circumstances, he would agree to purchase the land on sq. ft. basis. No feat of imagination is necessary to reach the conclusion. The answer is obviously "no".

17. We need not to go into a catena of other decisions rendered in the last several decades since we are benefited of a recent Division Bench decision of this Court in First Appeal No. 454/2003 and other connected matters, Meerut Development Authority through its Secretary vs. Basheshwar Dayal (since deceased) through His L.Rs and another, decided on 1.8.2013, wherein the legal principles settled by Apex Court in various judgments, relevant for determination of market value have been crystallized as under:

( i) Function of the Court in awarding compensation under the Act is to ascertain the market value of the land on the date of the notification under Section 4(1),

(ii) The method of determination of market value may be:-

(a) Opinion of experts,

(b)the price paid within a reasonable time in bona fide transactions of purchase of the lands acquired or the lands adjacent to the lands acquired and possessing similar advantage,

(c ) a number of years purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the land acquired. (Ref. (1994) 4 S.C.C 595 para 5 Jawajee Nagnatham Vs. Revenue Division Officer & others).

(iii) While fixing the market value of the acquired land, comparable sales method of valuation is preferred than other methods of valuation of land such as capitalization of net income method or expert opinion method. Comparable sales method of valuation is preferred because it furnishes the evidence for determination of the market value of the acquired land at which a willing purchaser would pay for the acquired land if it had been sold in the open market at the time of issue of notification under section 4 of the Act. However, comparable sales method of valuation of land for fixing the market value of the acquired land is not always conclusive but subject to the following factors:-

(a) Sale must be a genuine transaction,

(b) the sale deed must have been executed at the time proximate to the date of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act,

(c ) the land covered by the sale must be in the vicinity of the acquired land,

(d) the land covered by the sales must be similar to the acquired land,

(e) the size of plot of the land covered by the sales be comparable to the land acquired.

(f) if there is dissimilarity in regard to locality, shape, site or nature of land between land covered by sales and land acquired, it is open to the Court to proportionately reduce the compensation for acquired land.

(iv) The amount of compensation cannot be ascertained with mathematical accuracy. A comparable instance has to be identified having regard to the proximity from the angle as well as proximity from situation angle. For determining the market value of the land under acquisition, suitable adjustment has to be made having regard to various positive and negative factors vis-a-vis the land under acquisition which are as under:

Positive factors

Negative factors.

(i) Smallness of size.

Largeness of area.

(ii) Proximity to a road.

(ii) Situation in the interior at a distance from the road.

(iii) Frontage on a road.

(iii) Narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth.

(iv) Nearness to developed area.

(iv) Lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up.

(v) Regular shape.

(v) Lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up.

(vi) Level vis-a-vis land under acquisition.

(vi) Some special disadvantageous factor which would deter a purchaser.

(vii) Special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage.

(v) For ascertaining the market value of the land, the potentiality of the acquired land should also be taken into consideration. Potentiality means capacity or possibility for changing or developing into state of actuality.

(vi) Deduction not to be done when land holders have been deprived of their holding 15 to 20 years back and have not been paid any amount.

(vii) In fixing market value of the acquired land, which is undeveloped or under-developed, the Courts have generally approved deduction of 1/3rd of the market value towards development cost except when no development is required to be made for implementation of the public purpose for which land is acquired.( Ref. (2011) 8 S.C.C page 9, Valliyammal and another Vs. Special Tehsildar Land Acquisition and another, paras 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19).

(viii) When there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, it is the general rule that the highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied, that it is a bona fide transaction has to be considered and accepted. When the land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled to the highest value which similar land in the locality shown to have fetched in a bona fide transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller near about the time of the acquisition. (Ref. (2012) 5 S.C.C 432, Mehrawal Khewaji Trust ( Registered ), Faridkot and others Vs. State of Punjab and others).

(ix) In view of Section 51A of the Act certified copy of sale deed is admissible in evidence, even the vendor or vendee thereof is not required to examine themselves for proving the contents thereof. This, however, would not mean that contents of the transaction as evidenced by the registered sale deed would automatically be accepted. The legislature advisedly has used the word 'may'. A discretion, therefore, has been conferred upon a Court to be exercised judicially, i.e., upon taking into consideration the relevant factors. Only because a document is admissible in evidence, the same by itself would not mean that the contents thereof stand proved. Having regard to the other materials brought on record, the Court may not accept the evidence contained in a deed of sale. (Ref. (2004) 8 S.C.C 270 para 28 and 38, Cement Corpn. Of India Ltd. Vs. Purya and others)

(x) While fixing the market value of the acquired land, the Land Acquisition Collector is required to keep in mind the following factors :

(a) Existing geographical situation of the land.

(b) Existing use of the land.

(c) Already available advantages, like proximity to National or State Highway or road and/ or developed area,

(d) Market value of other land situated in the same locality/ village/ area or adjacent or very near the acquired land.

(xi) Section 23(1) of the Act lays down what the Court has to take into consideration while Section 24 lays down what the Court shall not take into consideration and have to be neglected. The main object of the enquiry before the Court is to determine the market value of the land acquired. The market value is the price that a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for the property having due regard to its existing condition with all its existing advantages and its potential possibilities when led out in most advantageous manner excluding any advantage due to carrying out of the scheme for which the property is compulsorily acquired. The determination of market value is the prediction of an economic event viz. a price outcome of hypothetical sale expressed in terms of probabilities. For ascertaining the market value of the land, the potentiality of the acquired land should also be taken into consideration. Potentiality means capacity or possibility for changing or developing into state of actuality.

(xii)The question whether a land has potential value or not, is primarily one of fact depending upon its condition, situation, user to which it is put or is reasonably capable of being put and proximity to residential, commercial or industrial areas or institutions. The existing amenities like water, electricity, possibility of their further extension, whether near about town is developing.

(xiii)In fixing market value of the acquired land, which is undeveloped or under-developed, the Courts have generally approved deduction of 1/3rd of the market value towards development cost except when no development is required to be made for implementation of the public purpose for which land is acquired. Deduction of "development cost" is the concept used to derive the "wholesale price" of a large undeveloped land with reference to the "retail price" of a small developed plot. The difference between the value of a small developed plot and the value of a large undeveloped land is the "development cost".(Ref. (2012) 7 S.C.C 595 paras 16, 17, 18, 21 and 22, Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla ( dead) and others).

18. We shall examine rival submissions in the light of exposition of law as discussed above.

19. In the present case, it is admitted that SLAO determined market value on the basis of exemplar of another village 'Chaura Sadatpur' and not that of village 'Gijhore', whereat, the acquired land is situated. Before the court below, there was an exemplar sale deed dated 7.2.1980 of village Gijhore, but that was not found credit worthy and thereafter there was no exemplar of village Gijhore available to the court below for determining market value. In these circumstances, following the decision in Anar Singh Vs. State; AIR 1985 SC 298 and AIR 1968 SC 1481; State of Gujarat Vs. Vakhatsinghji Vajesinghji Vaghela, the court below held that the exemplars of adjoining villages would become relevant. The court considered other exemplars placed before it by the parties, which related to village 'Chaura Sadatpur' and held as under:-

"vr% izLrqr dsl esa Hkh lknriqj ds leku ykHk okyh Hkwfe ds vk/kkj ij izfrdj fu/kkZfjr djuk U;k;ksfpr gksxkA ;fn izkFkhZ ;g fl} dj ns fd izLrqr dsl esa vf/kxzghr Hkwfe lknriqj ds fudV ds leku ykHk okyh Hkwfe Fkh bl lEcU/k esa izkFkhZ ds lk{kh ds dFku dk mYys[k djuk mi;qDr gksxkA vkius vius dFku esa ;g dgk gS fd vf/kxzghr Hkwfe fnYyh ds ikl fLFkr gS rFkk lery rFkk uks;Mk ds fodkl {ks= ds lehi FkhA fo'ks"k Hkwfe vkKfIr vf/kdkjh us Hkh vius vfHkfu.kZ; esa ;g vafdr fd;k gS fd lknriqj ds fodz; i= ftl Hkwfe ds Fks ;g fnYyh jkT; dh lhek ls feyh gqbZ Fkh tcfd xzke fx>ksM] lknriqj ds iwohZ fn'kk eas fLFkr Fkh vkSj fx>ksM ds lkFk fLFkr ugha Fkh tgka lknriqj dh FkhA ;gka ;g dguk vuqi;qDr u gksxk fd lknriqj dh Hkwfe Hkh ftl le; vf/kxzg.k dh xbZ Fkh mldk iz;ksx d`f"k dk;Z djus gsrq fd;k tk jgk Fkk rFkk izLrqr dsl esa Hkh vf/kxzg.k Hkwfe vf/kxzg.k ds le; d`f"k dk;Z ds fy, mi;ksx dh tk jgh FkhA bl izdkj ;gka ;g dguk vuqik;qDr u gksxk fd lknriqj dh Hkwfe rFkk izLrqr lUnHkZ dh Hkwfe nksuksa gh d`f"k dk;Z ds iz;ksx gsrq ykbZ tk jgh FkhA Lkeku izd`fr dh Fkh rFkk bu nksuksa dh dher esa dsoy fnYyh dh nwjh ds vk/kkj ij gh fu.kZ; fd;k tkuk pkfg, FkkA bl lEcU/k esa dkxt la[;k 33x esa [email protected]:i;k izfr oxZ xt ds fglkc ls izfrdj fn;k x;k gS tcfd mijksDr dsl ds fu.kZ; esa xzke lknriqj dh /kkjk 4 dk foKkiu 2-3-77 dks gqvk gS tcfd izLrqr dsl esa foKfIr fnukad 5-1-82 dks fd;k x;k gSA bl lEcU/k esa fo'ks"k vkKfIr vf/kdkjh }kjk izfrdj fu/kkZfjr djrs le; fx>ksM o lknriqj dh Hkwfe dk vuqikr 10-12 ,oa [email protected]:i;s izfr oxZxt fu/kkZfjr fd;k rFkk blh vk/kkj ij xzke lknriqj dh Hkwfe dh dher 28-12 iSls esa ls [email protected] dfFkr fx>ksM dh Hkwfe dh fLFkfr mikns;rk rFkk lknriqj dh mikns;rk rFkk lknriqj dh mikns;rk rFkk fLFkfr ls de gksus ij fx>ksM esa 2-3-77 dks mijksDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa yxHkx [email protected] izfrdj fu/kkZfjr fd;k tk ldrk gS1 pwwfd fnukad 2-3-77 ds xtV ds le; lknriqj dh Hkwfe dk izfrdj [email protected] :i;k fu/kkZfjr fd;k gSA fx>ksM esa izLrqr dsl esa vf/kxzfgr Hkwfe dh vf/klwpuk 5-1-82 dh gS1 vr% 5 o"kZ esa LokHkkfod :i ls dherksa esa o`f} gqbZ gksxh rFkk bl lEcU/k esa ,y , lh lh 1989 ds i`"B 540 ij ekuuh; iatkc o gfj;k.kk mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ,y , lh lh 1991 ds i`"B 415 ij iatkc o gfj;k.kk mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ;g er izfrikfnr fd;k gS fd :-

"Hence, in the instant case, too, it would be justifiable to decide the compensation on the basis of equally profitable land as of Sadatpur. If the applicant proves that the acquired land in the instant case was equally profitable land as of Sadatpur and situated near it. In relation to it, it would be appropriate to mention the statement of the witness on behalf of the applicant. The said witness has deposed in his statement that the acquired land is situated near Delhi and it was plain area located near the Noida Development Area. Special Land Acquisition Officer has also noted down in his finding that the land to which sale deed of Sadatpur belonged was situated bordering the state of Delhi. On the other hand, village Gijhore, was situated east of Sadatpur and it did not share its boundary with Sadatpur. Here, it will not be improper to say that the Sadatpur's land, while being acquired, was being used for agricultural purposes and in the instant case as well the acquired land was being used for agricultural purposes. In this way, it will not be improper to say that both the land of Sadatpur and the land in the present case were being used for agricultural purposes. They were of similar nature and the value of both the lands should have been decided on the basis of distance from Delhi. In this respect, as per the paper no. 33C, the compensation has been given on the basis of Rs. 28 per square yard; whereas, in deciding the aforesaid case, the land located in Sadatpur was notified u/s 4 dated 02.03.77; whereas, in the instant case, the notification was published on 05.01.82. In relation to it, the Special Land Acquisition Officer while deciding the compensation has fixed the land of Gijhore and that of Sadatpur in the ratio of 10-12 and Rs 9/ per square yard and on the same basis, the value of the land of Sadatpur was determined at Rs. 28.12. As the utility and location of the land situated in Gijhore being lesser than the utility and location of the land in Sadatpur, the compensation in Gijhore on 02.03.077 may be determined at Rs. 25, because at the time of gazette dated 02.03.77, the compensation for land in Sadatpur has been decided at the rate of Rs. 25. In the instant case in Gijhore , the notification for the acquired land was published on 05.01.82. Hence, in the time period of 5 years, the values may have soared up naturally and in relation to it, at the page number 540 of LACC 1989, the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and at the page number 415 of LACC 1991 the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has opined that: -

(English translation by the Court)

"Continuous increase in the value of land- No definite evidence of increase- 12% per annum could be considered as appreciation in value".

bl izdkj [email protected] :i;k izfr oxZxt esa 5% o`f} ls 60% o`f} gksrh gS vr% bl izdkj vf/kxzghr Hkwfe dk ewY; /kkjk 4 ds le; [email protected] :i;k izfr oxZ xt mi;qDr gS blls iwoZ nwljh vksj xzke ekewjk dh Hkwfe iz'uxr Hkwfe ls feyh gqbZ gS1 mDr xzke esa ekuuh; ftyk tt }kjk fu.kZ; 30-5-92 dks dkxt la[;k 35x }kjk xzke ekewjk esa tgka fd /kkjk 4 dh foKfIr 28-8-88 dks gqbZ gS izfrdj eqcfyx [email protected] :i;k izfr oxZ xt ds fglkc ls fn;k x;k gS bl lEcU/k esa ;g dguk vuqi;qDr u gksxk fd i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; ls ;g Li"V gS fd xzke ekewjk vf/kxzfgr Hkwfe ds fudV gS rFkk ekuuh; bykgkckn mPp U;k;ky; }kjk , vkbZ vkj 1986 ds i`"B 17 ij ;g er izfrikfnr fd;k gS fd U;kf;d fu.kZ; lehiLFk Hkwfe ds ekU; gksxkA ;fn vf/kxzfgr Hkwfe leku gS! IkzLrqr dsl esa foi{kh ds vf/koDrk }kjk ftu vfHkys[kksa dk mYys[k fd;k gS os ;k rks /kkjk 4 dh vf/klw;uk ls 6-7 o"kZ iwoZ ds gSa vFkok fu.kZ; dkxt la[;k 48 x esa ikfjr djrs le; ekewjk dk fodz; i= Hkwfe Lokeh }kjk izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k FkkA mijksDr leLr rF;ksa o ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa foi{khx.k ds vfHkoDrk }kjk izLrqr vfHkys[k dk izfrdj fu/kkZfjr djus ds fy, izLrqr dsl esa fopkj ugha fd;k tkuk mi;qDr u gksxkA blds foijhr dkxt la[;k 3 x rk 38 x ds voyksdu ls ;g Li"V gS fd vf/kxzfgr dh xbZ Hkwfe ds fudV xzke esa Hkwfe ds Hkko c In this way, there will to be a total of 60 percent increase in the value of land at 5 percent increase in the value of Rs. 25 per square yard. Hence, in this way the value of acquired land, Rs. 40 per square yard, at the time of notification u/s 4 is proper. East of it, the land of village Mamura adjoins the land in question. In the aforesaid village Mamura, where the notification u/s - 4 was published on 28.08.88, Hon'ble District Judge in his order, paper no. 35C, dated 30.05.92 has determined the compensation at Rs. 71 per square yard. In relation to it, it may not be improper to say that on the basis of evidence available on record that the village Mamura is located near the acquired land and at the page number 17, AIR 1986, it has been opined by the Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad that judicial decision shall be applicable to the adjoining land.

Whatsoever records have been mentioned by the counsel for the opposite party in the instant case are 6-7 years prior to the notification u/s 4 or while passing the judgement being paper no. 48 C, the sale deed of the land situated in Mamura village was not presented by the land owner. In all the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it would not be apt to not take the records presented by the counsel for the opposite party into account while determining the amount of compensation. On the contrary, from perusal of paper nos. 3 C to 38 C it is clear that the prices of the nearby lands of the annexed land have gone up and by taking into account the aforesaid fact highlighted in several orders the compensation has been awarded at the rate of Rs. 71 in the nearby village, as is clear from 33 C. Here it would also not be improper to say that the prices of the land are rising day by day. Insofar as the availability of the land is insufficient and there is difference between the availability and demand of the land, the counsel for the land owner has drawn my attention to AIR 1992, page 150 on this point. On the aforesaid page, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has propounded this view:

(English Translation by the Court)

"Compensation Determination-Rise in market price from earlier order determining compensation for lands of same village-compensation for lands in question enhanced taking into consideration such rise in market value".

 

 
	mijksDr dsl esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk fuEu pkVZ Hkh vfdr fd;k gS ftlds vuqlkj dherksa dh o`f} dk vuqeku yxk;k tk ldrk gS !
 
	/kkjk 4 ( 1 )  dh fnukad	nj izfr Ldok;j
 
		20-3-75				[email protected]
 
		16-5-76				[email protected]
 
		3-9-76					[email protected]
 
		6-1-78					[email protected]
 

iz'uxr Hkwfe ds fu/kkZj.k ds fy, D;ksa dksbZ cSukek fodz; xzke fx>ksM dh miyC/k ugha gS1vr% fudVLFk Hkwfe ds fodz; i= vFkkZr U;kf;d fu.kZ; ns[kdj gh izfrdj dk fu/kkZj.k fd;k tk ldrk gS vc iz'u ;g gS fd izLrqr iz'uxr Hkwfe /kkjk 4 dh vf/klwpuk fnukad 5-1-82 dk gS vk/kkj ij /kkjk 4 dh vf/klwpuk 28-8-88 ds dsl esa 30-5-92 dks [email protected] ds fglkc ls izfrdj fnyk;k gS bl izdkj nksuksa /kkjk 4 (1) esa lk ksM dh Hkwfe dk izfrdj ewY; [email protected] :i;k izfr oxZ xt dh nj ls fnukad 8-4-93 dks iznku djk;k x;k gS1 rFkk izLrqr dsl esa mijksDr fl}kUr , vkbZ vkj 1992 lw0 dksVZ 150 ds vk/kkj ij tks pkVZ crk;k x;k gS izLrqr dsl esa eq0 [email protected] iSls izfr dj fu/kkZfjr gksrk gS ;gka ij dkxt la[;k 39x dk mYys[k djuk iqu% vko';d gksxk tks fd xzke fx>ksM dk fltjk gS blds voyksdu ls ;g Li"V gS fd xzke ekewjk ]lknriqj fx>ksM ds fudV fLFkr gS vr% mijksDr ifjfLFkfr esa ekewjk o lknriqj dh vf/kxzfgr Hkwfe ds fu.kZ; ,oa fodz; i= dk izfrdj fu/kkZfjr djus ds fy, lk{; esa xzkg; gS! i=koyh ij miyC/k mijksDr leLr rF;ksa dh lw{e foopsuk ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa dk voyksdu djus ds mijkUr izLrqr dsl esa iz'uxr Hwfe dk izfrdj vf/klwpuk dh fnukad 5-1-82 dks izpfyr cktkj ewY; [email protected] :i;k izfr oxZ xt ds fglkc ls fu/kkZfjr djuk mi;qDr gksxk" (Emphasis supplied)

In the aforesaid case, the following chart has also been recorded on the basis of which rise in prices can be estimated.

Date of notification u/s 4(1)  			Rate per square 
 
	20.3.75						20/	
 
	16.5.76						25/
 
	3.9.76							26/	
 
	6.1.78							30/
 
	
 

For determination of price of the land in question, no sale deed is available in relation to the village Gijhore. Hence, the compensation can be determined only on the basis of the sale deed of the nearby land or in view of any judicial order. Hence, the question is whether compensation has been awarded at the rate of Rs. 71/- on 30.5.1992 in the case of the notification u/s 4 dated 28.8.1988, basing such determination on the notification u/s 4 dated 5.1.1982. In this way, there is a gap of 6 years and a half between these two notifications u/s 4 (1). Hence, if the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in AIR 1992, page 150, then the price of acquisition comes to be Rs. 34.50 per square yards. In the present case, the compensation amount of the land situated in Gijhore has been awarded on 8.4.1993 at the rate of Rs. 31/ per square yard, taking the notification dated 5.1.1982 as the base. The chart stated to be based on the aforesaid principle laid down in AIR 1992 SC, page 150, the compensation comes to be determined at the rate of Rs. 34.50 in the present case. Here it would again be necessary to make mention of paper No. 39 C which forms 'Jijra' (part) of Gijhore village. From its perusal it is clear that Mamura village is situated near Sadatpur and Gijhore villages. Hence, in the aforesaid circumstance, the orders relating to the acquired lands of Mamura and Sadatpur villages are admissible in determination of compensation. On close scrutiny of all the aforesaid facts available on the file and on appreciation of the circumstances, it would be proper to determine the compensation amount of the land in question at the market rate of Rs. 34/ per square yard as on the date of notification i.e. 5.1.1982. (English Translation by the Court.)

20. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant could not show that the consideration by Court below are apparently erroneous, illegal or it has otherwise committed any legal or otherwise error in determining market value at Rs. 34/ per sq. yard. It is also not in dispute that village Gijhore is extended to Sector 34 and 33 along with village Morna and village Sadatpur. Both sectors are fully developed and acquired land of village Gijhore is on both sides of road. In fact, it is admitted that village Gijhore is adjoining to three villages i.e. Morna, Mamura and Chaura Sadatpur. The land in village Chaura Sadatpur had already come under acquisition and fell in sector 33. Similarly, in village Morna the acquisition started long back and fell in sector 34, therefore, it was part of area, in which there was already substantial development.

21. With respect to enhancement, the rate determined by the Court below we inquired repeatedly from counsel for the claimant-respondents as to grounds on which the rate of compensation need be enhanced, particularly when every relevant aspect has been considered by the Court below and in available circumstances and material on record, the Reference Court has followed higher rate of market value, whereupon learned counsel appearing for the claimant -respondents despite repeated query could not point out anything to justify any alteration by way of enhancement in the impugned award. We, therefore, find no merit in the cross objection/appeals filed by the claimant- respondents.

22. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case as also the exposition of law discussed above, we find no factual and legal error or otherwise, which would warrants interference in the impugned judgment/award determining market value at Rs. 34/ per sq. yard by the Court below. In our view it is just, reasonable and founded on valid principle available for determining the market value under statute. The point no. 1 for determination is answered against the appellant and in favour of claimant-respondents while question no. 2 is answered against the claimant-respondents.

23. In the circumstances, all appeals as well as cross objections/cross appeals are hereby dismissed.

24. The parties shall bear their own cost.

Order Date: 23.07.2015

dhirendra/-