Nasir Ali vs Union Of India
1998 Latest Caselaw 850 Del

ORDER

Arun Kumar, J.

1. In a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi had fixed the market value of the acquired land of the appellant at the rate of Rs. 1,200/- per sq. yd. vide impugned judgment dated 12th October, 1993. The appellant has filed the present appeal against the said judgment claiming that the compensation be awarded to him on the basis of market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 4,200/- per sq. yd. Originally the appellant had claimed compensation at a lesser rate in the appeal. However, during the pendency of the appeal the claim was by way of amendment enhanced to Rs. 4,200/- per sq. yd. and the requisite Court fee on the enhanced claim stands paid.

2. The appellant's acquired land falls in Khasra Nos. 616/376/2 min, 616/376/3 min and 616/376/4 min in Village Chowkri Mubarikabad in Delhi. The appellant has claimed compensation with respect to an area of 900 sq. yds. in the said Khasra numbers. The date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act is 10th September, 1987. The declaration under Section 6 was issued on 9th February 1988. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his Award No. 28/89-90 dated 6th February, 1990 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 200/- per sq. yd. In the reference under Section 18 of the Act the learned Additional District Judge enhanced the market value of land and awarded compensation to the appellant at the rate of Rs. 1,200/- per sq. yd. The appellant has claimed compensation at the market value of Rs. 4,200/- per sq.yd. in the present appeal.

3. The learned Counsel for the appellant mainly relied upon a decision of this Court in R.F.A 131 of 1988, Ram Lal Bansiwal Vs. Union of India, in which this Court fixed the market value of land in the same village at the rate of Rs. 2,320/- per sq. yd. The date of notification under Section 4 in the said case was 27th July, 1984. The claimant in the said case approached the Supreme Court against the decision of this Court praying for further enhancement of compensation. The Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1328/97 arising out of S.L.P. No. 10661/96 by its judgment dated 17th February, 1997 fixed the market value of land at Rs. 3,000/- per sq.yd. The learned Counsel submitted that the date of notification under Section 4 under consideration in the said decision of the Supreme Court was 27th July, 1984 whereas the date of Section 4 notification in the present case is 10th September, 1987. Thus there is a gap of more than three years for which suitable enhancement ought to be made.

In this behalf the learned Counsel further relied on the fact that the Collector in his award had fixed the market value of land in the present case at Rs. 200/- per sq.yd. as against the market value of the land fixed by the Collector in Ram Lal Bansiwal's case at Rs. 60/- per sq. yd. He submitted that the Collector thus enhanced the compensation more than three times on account of the three years time difference between the two notifications. Accordingly as per the calculation of the learned Counsel for the appellant he is entitled to compensation at a rate more than three times of the rate fixed by the Supreme Court in Ram Lal bansiwal's case which comes to more than Rs. 10,000/- per sq.yd. He, however, claims compensation only @ Rs. 4,200/- per sq.yds.

4. So far as the comparison of the lands involved in both the cases, i.e. the present case and the case of Ram Lal Bansiwal is concerned, it is submitted that both the lands are in vicinity of each other and both were acquired for purposes of construction of a Flyover at Zakhira Chowk, near Sarai Rohilla.

5. The learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the land which is the subject matter of present appeal is not comparable to the land which was involved in Ram Lal Bansiwal's case. In the present appeal the land is much inferior by way of location etc. For this our attention has been drawn to the award of the Collector in the present case wherein the Collector has stated "the land under acquisition is inferior to the land acquired vide Award No. 124/86-87 as it is neither being used for commercial purpose nor for industrial purposes and it is surrounded by the Railway lines and fly-over". As against this the land involved in Ram Lal Bansiwal's case was described by the Collector in the said cases as" located on the side of New Rohtak Road, across Sarai Rohilla near Zakhira Chowk, industrial activities surrounded the area and the facilities like electricity, water and transport are available here". It is further to be noted that on the said land a petrol pump was being run at the time of its acquisition. It abutted on the main road and, therefore, had an easy and advantageous access. On the basis of this locational disadvantage which was noted by the Collector, the learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the appellants is not entitled to compensation at the same market rate as in RFA 131 of 1988.

6. During the course of hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant could not dispute the fact that the land which is subject matter of the present appeals is inferior to the land which was subject matter of R.F.A.

131 of 1988. His emphasis was on the three years advantage on account of the fact that the Section 4 notification in the present case is later in point of time.

7. We have perused the aks shajra as well as the observations of the Land Acquisition Collectors in both the cases. These make it clear that the land which is subject matter of the present appeal is not as advantageously located as the land which was the subject matter of Ram Lal Bansiwal's case. It is particularly noteworthy that the land involved in the present appeal is surrounded by Railway lines on both the sides and is almost land locked. So far as the other aspects regarding development in the area and availability of water and electricity is concerned, the same advantage is available to both the lands but from the locational point of view the land in the present appeal cannot be said to be comparable to the land in the other appeal which abutted on the main road and had a petrol pump functioning on it at the time of the notification for its acquisition. This locational disadvantage in our view far out weighs the three years time difference between Section 4 notification in the present case and the one in Ram Lal Bansiwal's case. The benefit for the three years time gap which the appellant in the present appeal could have got is in our view offset by the disadvantage which the appellant's land suffers on account of its inferior location. Accordingly we are unable to persuade ourselves to award compensation in favour of the appellant at a higher market rate as compared to the rate at which it was awarded in Ram Lal Bansiwal's case. The market value of land in the present appeal is thus fixed at Rs. 3,000/- per sq.yd. The appellant will be entitled to compensation on the basis of the said market value of land.

8. Besides compensation on the aforesaid basis, the appellant will be entitled to 12% additional amount under Section 23(1A) of the Act. The appellant will also be entitled to solatium @ 30% of the market value. The amount of compensation awarded by the Court in the present case is in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector. Therefore, the appellants will be entitled to interest on the excess amount @ 9% per annum from the date of taking possession of the land by the Collector to the date of payment of such excess into Court. If the excess or any part thereof was paid into Court after the date of expiry of a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest @ 15% per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of such excess or part thereof which has not been paid into Court before the date of such expiry. The appellant will get proportionate costs of the appeal.

The appeal stands Disposed of in above terms.