D.L.F. Limited vs Union Of India (Uoi)
1991 Latest Caselaw 171 Del

JUDGMENT

Usha Mehra, J.

1. Appellant's land measuring 2 bigha 1 biswas situated in Krishna Nagar Extension, Delhi was acquired by Land Acquisition Notification under Section 4 on 8.2.1960. The Collector in his award held that the market value was Rs. 600/- per bigha and passed his awards. The learned Additional District Judge in the reference under Section 18 of the Act raised the compensation amount to Rs. 3,500/- (per Bigha). The appellants had challenged the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge and has claimed that the compensation be paid at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per bigha.

2. In support of his claim the appellant had produced Exhibits A-1, A-7 A-9 and A-10 which are sale instances from the same village Krishna Nagar, Ex. A-1 is for Rs. 10/- per square yard, Ex. A-7 is for Rs. 6/-, A-9 for Rs. 7/. and Ex. A 10 for Rs. 6.75 per sq. yard. He has also stated instance from who is called Pandit Park. In the said instance Ex. A-6 is for Rs. 20,000 per bigha. The learned Additional District Judge found that the best evidence was no available and hence considered the relevant merits of the sale transactions instances from Krishna Nagar Extension as against Pandit Park. The learned/ A.D.J. has also noted she sale transactions/instances nearer in point of time Ex. R-7 for Rs. 553. 5 per bigha and Ex. R-9 for Rs. 535.50 paise per bigha produced on behalf of the Union of India which are evidences of mutation enteries. The learned A.D J., by a very detailed and convincing reasoning, has preferred the sale instances for Krishna Nagar Extension and come to the conclusion that the proper market value for the appellant's land would be Rs. 3,500/- per bigha. Para 11 of the A.D.J.'s order reads :

"11. First, we have to find out as to which of two sets of instances one relating to Krishna Nagar extension and the other relating to Pandit Park is preferable. Obviously the former is preferable in as much as land in question admittedly formed part of Krishna Nagar extension. The sale nearness to the date of notification u/s of the Act was vide Ex. A-1. That sale took place on 20th May, 1959 which was little less than a year before the date of notification Under Section 4 of the Act. There must have been some increase in value up to the date of the aforesaid notification. On comparison of the sale deeds Ex. A-7, A-9, A-10, and A-1 it can be said that the value increased by Rs. 3/- per sq. yd. from June, 1953 to May, 1959, which means increase @ 0 50 per sq. yd. p.a. Hence it can be said that the value of plotted area in Krishna Nagar in 1960 was Rs. 10.50 per sq. yd. In the absence of any satisfactory material to show as to what percentage of land bad been left for roads, parks etc. One can say that

such percentage was about 40. By way of making deduction on account of loss of that much land, the value comes to roughly Rs. 6'50 per sq. yd. There must have been expenditure to the extent of Rs. ?/- per sq. yd. on account of development, administration, brokerage etc. Therefore, the net value of the land in question comes to Rs. 3.50 per sq. yd. or Rs. 3,500/- per bigha."

The learned A.D.J. has rejected the said sale instances.

3. The submissions of the counsel for the appellant is that the learned Additional District Judge was wrong in preferring the instances of Krishna Nagar extension as against Pandit Park, He submits that Pandit Park ad joint his lands and, therefore, should be given preference. We do not agree. The land is in Krishna Nagar area and the sale instance; namely, A-1 which is relied upon by the Additional District Judge is from the same village. Out of the sale instances from Krishna Nagar Extension produced by the appellant himself the Additional District Judge has preferred the one where the maximum rate is fetched for the sale, namely, Rs. 10/- and he has discarded the other sale instances where price was less. It appears that Pandit Park also formed the part of Krishna Nagar village and the name is set up by a private coloniser. It is a wellknown fact that lands around Delhi are not acquired by the Delhi Administration in terms of the plots. The entire villages are acquired. In vice of this, this court has been consistently following the principle of deciding compensation on the basis of acquisition of the entire village. This practice has been upheld a number of times by the Supreme Court. We therefore, find no reason to take a different view from that taken by the Additional District Judge. We, therefore, hold that the appellant is entitled to the compensation of Rs. 3,500/- per bigha. He would also b3 entitled to 15% solarium, and 6% interest per annum from the date of possession till date of payment on the enhanced compensation amount.

4. The appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs .