Radha Soami Satsang Beas vs Union Of India And Ors.
1991 Latest Caselaw 756 Del

JUDGMENT

D.P. Wadhwa, J.

(1) This is an appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') against judgment dated 16 July, 1977 of Mr. C.D. Vashishta, Additional District Judge, Delhi, whereby on reference made to him under section 18 of the Act, he declined to interfere in the award given by the Land Acquisition Collector. In his award No, 1745 of 20 November 1964 the Land Acquisition Collector had fixed the market value of the appellant's land at Rs. 4,OO0.00 per bigha. The village in which the land of the appellant was situated was Khampur Raya and notification under section 4 of the Act respecting the appellant's land and some other land in all measuring 237 bighas 9 biswas was issued on 26 July 1976. Then notification under section 6 was issued on 27 March 1958. The land of the appellant measured 33 bighas 5 biswas.

(2) In this appeal the appellant has claimed that the compensation be enhanced to Rs. 21.00 per sq. yd. besides solarium and interest. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant filed an application for early hearing of the same on the ground that this court in R.F.A. 237/73 (Harbans Singh and others v. Union of India) decided on 10 April 1980 had already fixed the market value of the land in the revenue estate of village Khampur Raya at Rs. 6,500.00 per bigha. thereby enhancing the market value by Rs. 2,500 per bigha. The appeal Rfa 237/73 also arose of the same award as in the present appeal. This appeal was, therefore, listed for early hearing. At the time of hearing, however, the appellant submitted that the enhanced amount of compensation be not limited to what was awarded in the appeal filed by Harbans Singh (R.F.A. 237/73) and that the appellant is entitled to compensation at the much higher rate. In support of this submission Mr Dhamija who appeared for the appellant referred to two decisions of this Court, one in R.F.A. 10/73-Smt. Shanti Devi. Union of India, and the other in R.F.A. 19/68-Union of India v. Nathu Pershad. Both the appeals were decided by order dated 14 April 1988 by a Single Judge of this Court. In Shanti Devi's appeal with which two other appeals were connected, this Court fixed the market value of the land of the village Khampur Raya at the rate of Rs. 18.00 per sq. yd which was situated on the main Patel Road, and the land which was not situated on the road Rs. 17.00 per sq. yd. For the land which was having deep pits the court fixed the market value at Rs. 15.00 per sq yd. In the other appeal-Union of India v. Nathu Pershad the Additional District Judge has fixed the market value of the land in this very village situated on the main Patel Road at Rs. 27,600.00 for 1 bigha 5 biswas. This was confirmed and the appeal by Union of India was dismissed. In both these judgments the notification under section 4 of the Act was issued on 13 November 1959 and not on 26 July 1956 as in the present case before us. In Union of India v. Nathu Pershad it was only a small plot of land measuring bigha 5 biswas and had been purchased by the owner for a sum of Rs. 27,600.00 by sale deed dated March 1957. The Court accepted the genuineness of this sale deed and awarded the compensation for the same amount. The land, as noted above, was situated on the main Patel Road. In Shanti Devi's case the court observed referring to some earlier appeals that sale deed in case of Pritam Singh's case was sufficient guide for the prevailing market price at the time of the notification under section 4 of the Act. Pritam Singh had purchased a plot of land in this very village on 15 December 1956 measuring 514 sq. yds. for a sum of Rs. 10,000.00 . A Beach of this Court held in appeal (Union of India v. Pritam Singh RFF\ 76-D/6l, decided on 6 January 1970) that sale deed of Pritam Singh represented a true and normal transaction and was proximate in time. In that case the date of notification under section 4 of the Act was 24 April 1957. But then land of Pritam Singh was also situated on the main Patel Road and was a small piece of land. These two judgments, therefore do not give us enough guidelines for arriving at the market value in the present case. In the appeal of Harbans Singh (RFA 237/73), a learned Single Judge examined some earlier judgments of the Additional District Judges on reference under section 18 of the Act where also the land was situated in the village Khampur Raya. In one case the compensation awarded was Rs. 8,000.00 per bigha when the notification under section 4 of the Act was issued on 3 January 1956 and the land had been acquired for D.T.U. shed. In the second case the land was also acquired for D.T.U. Colony and it measured 39 bighas. Notification under section 4 in this case was issued on 4 January 1956 and on reference compensation was raised to Rs 15,600.00 per bigha where the land was situated on the main road and the land behind the road the market value fixed was Rs 10,600.00 per bigha. After referring to two other judgments of two other Additional District Judges in which also the notification was issued in January 1956 and wherein those courts had held that the value of the land in village Khampur Raya at the relevant time was much higher than Rs. 4,000.00 per bigha, the learned Single Judge in Harbans Singh' s appeal fixed the market value of the land at Rs.6,500.00 per bigha, thus, allowing the enhancement of Rs. 2,500.00 per bigha.

(3) Mr. Dhamija said that the land in the present case was situated on the main road leading from Dev Nagar to Pusa Road and that pits in the land had all been filled up by the efforts of the appellant. In this connection he referred to the statement of PW-4 Ram Nath Mehta, Secretary of the appellant- He said after purchase of the land in 1950 it was levelled though at the lime of purchase it was full of big ditches and several ponds. The learned Additional District Judge held that no evidence had come on record as to how much amount was spent by the appellant in levelling the land. As per the statement of Ram Nath Mehta the levelling was done by providing voluntary services of the followers of the appellant. We do not think the approach of the learned Additional District Judge is correct on this account Even if the land had been levelled by voluntary efforts the fact that the land was levelled would certainly go a long way to determine the market value of the land. It is not the question who levelled the land or how much amount was spend on levelling. The Additional District Judge, however, found that some portion of the land was encroached upon by certain unauthorised persons. He did not rely upon the aks shajra (Ext. AW3/1) which was prepared almost 12 years after the notification under section 4 of the Act even if rightly so. A great deal of argument was addressed by Mr. Dhamija on sale deed (Ext AW5/A) which related to sale of plot measuring 209 sq. yds. in the Western Extension Area, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, the sale deed being dated 5 March 1954 and the sale consideration Rs. 6,100.00 . We think this document was not again rightly relied upon by the learned Additional District Judge as it pertains to a small plot of land in a developed colony though opposite the land in question. In the revenue record the land in question has been described as gair mumkin pahar and there was no development there except that by the efforts of the appellant the land had been levelled. This land is not situated on the main Patel Road but on the side road from Dev Nagar leading O Pusa Road .Moreover, it was admitted during the course of arguments that opposite to this land there is a cremation ground as well.This fact itself would lower the value of the land. Reference was made to a decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Kausalya Devi Bogra & Ors. v. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad & Anr. , to contend that potential value of the land must be kept in view in fixing compensation. This proposition is well settled. It was pointed out that on the land prestigious Rajendra Place has come up and a residential colony Prasad Nagar has also been built. The land certainly had potential value for carrying on building activities and it abutted the road though not the main road. Reference was also made to a Bench decision of Punjab High Court in M/s D.L F. Housing and Construction (P) Ltd. v. Union of India as to how expenses for development of the land are to be determined.

(4) In the circumstances like the present one there has to be some sort of guess work in arriving at the market value though the principles of law are now quite well settled. One cannot certainly see with prophetic eye as to what would be the ultimate potential value of the land in years to come. One can only reasonably think of near future as to what use ultimately the land will be put to. As to what matters are to be considered in determining compensation have been set out in section 23 of the Act and what matters the court should not take into consideration have been set out in section 24. In section 24 it is provided that court shall not take into consideration any increase to the value of the land acquired likely to accrue from the use to which it will be put when acquired. In the present case the land could be developed and used for building purposes but at the sometime the whole of the land was not levelled and some of it had been encroached upon by unauthorised persons. It was also situated in front of a cremation ground though abutting the road, but at the same time it is situated opposite Western Extension Area, Karol Bagh, a fully developed colony. Considering all these factors and the principles as set out above we are of the opinion that the appellant should be given compensation at the rate of Rs. 11,000.00 per bigha.

(5) Accordingly, we fix the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 11,000.00 per bigha, thus, enhancing the same by Rs. 7,000.00 per bigha. The appellant will be entitled to solarium at the rate of 15% on the market value of the land and interest at the rate 6% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of possession of the land till the payment of the enhanced compensation. Appellant will be entitled to proportionate costs limited to court fee only.