Rameshwar Dayal And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi)
1998 Latest Caselaw 1098 Del

JUDGMENT

Arun Kumar, J.

1. This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against a judgment dated 3rd April, 1969 of the learned Addl. District Judge, Delhi in a reference under Section 18 of the Act. The land subject matter of this appeal comprising in area 43 bighas and 6 biswas falls in village Peepal Thala. The appellants Claim 1/3rd share in the said land. The notification under Section 4 of the Act for acquisition of a larger chunk of land was issued on 13th November, 1959. It was followed by a declaration dated 22nd November, 1962 under Section 6 of the Act. The Collector made his award on 22nd April, 1963 being Award No. 1570/63. The Collector divided the land under acquisition in two blocks. The land on the higher level near the village abadi was included in Block A while the remaining land was put in Block B. The Collector awarded compensation @ Rs. 1,500/- per bigha for the land falling in Block A and Rs. 1,000/- per bigha for the land falling in Block B. The land of the appellants falls in Block A. In the reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned Addl. District Judge enhanced the compensation by Rs. 500/- in case of both the blocks meaning thereby that for land falling in Block A, compensation was fixed at Ra. 2,000/- per bigha while for the land falling in Block B it was fixed at Rs. 1,500/- per bigha. The land owners have further come up to this Court by way of present appeal wherein they claim that compensation should be awarded to them by fixing the market value of the land in question @ Rs. 6,000/- per bigha.

2. When this appeal came up for final disposal before a Division Bench of this Court on 21st August, 1995, it was noticed that in RFA No. 54/1967 titled Karam Singh etc. v. Union of India decided on 29th February, 1984, this Court fixed the market value of land in the same village enhancing it by Rs. 500/- per bigha only over and above what was fixed by the Addl. District Judge. The date of notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act and the award of the Collector were the same in RFA 54/1967 as in the present case.

3. In another decision of this Court relating to the same village and same notifications under Sections 4 and 6 (though a different award), this Court fixed the market value of land @ Rs. 9,000/- per bigha. The second Decision is in RFA 207/67 Lehari and Ors.

v. Union of India decided on 17th February, 1995 . In view of the said two decisions of this Court fixing different market value for the land under acquisition in the same village and subject matter of the same notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, this case was referred to a large Bench vide order dated 21st August, 1995. This is how this appeal has been placed before this Bench for final decision.

4. Mr. Maheshwar Dayal, learned Counsel for the appellants has naturally relied on the subsequent decision of this Court in RFA No. 207/1967 Lehari and Ors. v. Union of India where compensation was awarded @ Rs. 9,000/- per bigha. According to the learned Counsel, this is a later decision and ought to be followed by this Court. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondent submits that we should follow the earlier decision of this Court RFA No. 54/1967 Karam Singh etc. v. Union of India. She submits that had the earlier decision been brought to the notice of the Division Bench deciding the Lehari's case, the Bench would have followed the earlier decision. She has further submitted that the later decision of this Court in Lehari's case is based on the rate determined by this Court for acquired land in an adjoining village. RFA No. 54/1967, Karam Singh v. Union of India has been decided on the basis of instances from the same village, i.e., Village Peepal Thala itself. We find merit in the submission made on behalf of the respondent to the extent that when instances in the same village are available for determining market value of land, we should not go to another village for guidance. The decision in Lehari and Ors., v. Union of India proceeds mainly on the basis that the land in the adjoining village was also acquired by way of the same notification under Section 4 of the Act as in the village in question and the two villages were adjoining each other. Rather it was observed that Village Peepal Thala is surrounded by village Bharola and the land in both the villages was similar in situation and kind. On this basis it was decided to follow the decision in case of Village Bharola and market value of acquired land was fixed at the rate of Rs. 9,000/- per bigha. The Court noted in its judgment in Lehari's case that normally compensation is not fixed on the basis of prices prevailing in adjoining village yet it was observed that in the peculiar circumstances of the case, that principle need not he followed.

5. We have considered both the judgments of this Court relating to village Peepal Thala. We are of the view that fixing compensation on the basis of instances available from within the same village is always preferable. It is only when instances from the same village, i.e., the village from where the land is being acquired are not available that one has to go to the adjoining village to find out the prevailing market price of land. It appears that in RFA No. 207/1967, the instances from the same village were not available on the record. The Court had no alternative but to fall back upon the instances/decisions in relation to adjoining village.

6. This brings us to RFA No. 54/1967. Three instances from the same village were available. They were:

Date

Area

Price

Rate per bigha

1.

17.7.1956

3 bigha 6 bis

9,900/-

3,000/-

2.

2.6.1958

4 bigha 17 is.

15,700/-

3,240/-

3.

10.9.1958

1 bigha 2 bis

5,000/-

4,545.40p

7. The Lands subject matter of the sale transactions abutted on the main G.T. Road as observed by the Court. This could give a better market price. The learned Addl. District Judge has discarded these transactions on this ground. The Division Bench has observed that from the Aks Sharja it appeared that the plots subject matter of the

above instances were situated very near the main road though they did not about on the main G.T. Road. After observing this the Court held that "the proper measure of compensation will be to give an additional amount of Rs. 1,000/- per bigha to what the LAC had given."

8. The above table containing instances of sale shows that price nearest to the date of Section 4 notification, i.e., 10th September, 1958 came to Rs. 5,445/- per bigha. However, the Bench observed that proper measure of compensation would be only an additional amount of Rs. 1,000/- per bigha over and above what the LAC had given. So far as the nearness to the main G.T. Road is concerned, it was found that the lands subject matter of the above transactions were also near the main road. In this context it has to be noted that the Supreme Court has been now taking the view that the land within the same village should preferably be assessed at the same market value and division of land in a village into blocks based on advantageous location etc. need not make difference in the prices. Recently the Supreme Court has observed that lands abutting on the main road are rather in disadvantageous position as compared to lands in the interior. Keeping this in view an increase of only Rs. 1,000/- per bigha over what the Land Acquisition Collector awarded does not appear to be fair compensation. Firstly, it has to be noted that on 10th September, 1958 the market rate of land comes to approximately Rs. 4,500/-. Secondly, we have to provide for a difference of about 14 months between l()th September, 1958 and 13th November, 1959, the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case. The Bench has observed in the case under consideration that the prices of land were increasing. Keeping this fact in view some margin has to be provided for the increase of price during the 14 month period. We are of the considered view that a fair market value of land in the present ease would be Rs. 5000/- per bigha. While fixing this price we have kept in view the fact that the last transition which gives a rate of Rs. 4,500/- per bigha approximately is of a comparatively smaller piece of land. For this reason, we think that the price of Rs. 4,500/- per bigha could be evened out to Rs. 4,000/- per bigha. To this we add Rs. 1,000/- per bigha to account for the 14-month time difference between the sale transaction in question and the date of Section 4 notification in the present case. This gives us the figure of Rs. 5,000/- per bigha. The appellants will be entitled to receive compensation determined @ Rs. 5,000/- per bigha for their l/3rd share of the acquired land. Besides this the appellants will be entitled to 15% of the market value by way of solatium and interest (a) 6% per annum from the date of dispossession till the date of payment. In view of difference of more than three years between the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, the appellants will also be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on the market value of land under Section 4(3) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1967 provided there is no overlapping in the payment of interest under Section 28 of the Act and Section 4(3) of the amendment Act.

9, The appeal stands disposed of. The appellants will get proportionate costs in this appeal.