Tindey And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr.
1999 Latest Caselaw 1241 Del

JUDGMENT

Devinder Gupta, J.

1. These four appeals have been preferred under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") seeking further enhancement in the mount of compensation payable to the appellants for acquisition of their property.

2. The property of the appellants situate in Village Khizarabad was notified under Section 4 of the Act on 10.5.1976 for being acquired for public purpose, namely construction of pilot-cut m the Reach from Nizamuddin Road Bridge to Okhla Weir. In all 36 bighas 7 biswas of land was notified for the said purpose. It was an acquisition, which was made by invoking Section 17(4) of the Act and all notifications under Sections 4, 6 and 17(4)of the Act were issued simultaneously on 10.5.1976. Proceedings for determination of the amount of compensation were held separately and the Collector Land Acquisition on 30.11.1976 made his award No.18776-77 holding the appellants to be entitled to compensation @ Rs.700/- per bigha. Feeling dissatisfied with the amount of compensation offered to them, the appellants sought reference. The Reference Court through the impugned awards enhanced the amount of compensation holding that the appellants entitled compensation @ Rs. 2,000/- per bigha. Still dissatisfied, these appeals have been preferred for further enhancement in the amount of compensation. The extent of enhancement sought in the appeals is now @ Rs. 50,000/-

per bigha.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that this Court in RFA 288/68 (Deewan Ram Saroop v. Union of India & Ors.) decided on 23.10.1992, fixed market value of land situate in Village Khizarabad @ Rs. 12,500/- per bigha as on 3.6.1961. In Deewan Rant Saroop's case (supra), land situate in Village Khizarabad was acquired for public purpose through notification dated 3.6.1961. Col lector in that case had made his award dated 27.2.1962 dividing the land in two blocks and fixing the market value at Rs. 4,000/- and Rs. 2,500/- per bigha for blocks 'A' and 'B' respectively. On reference, Additional District Judge held market value to be @ Rs. 5.000/- per bigha, but this Court in appeal held the market value of land as on 3.6.1961 to be Rs. 12,500/- per bigha. In the said case topography of Village Khizarabad was noticed that it was surrounded by Villages Bahapur, Jogabai and the lands where Maharani Bagh and New Friends Colony (Village Kilokari) had come up.

Holy Family Hospital situated in Village Jogabai, which was on the main road, i.e. Mathura Road to Okhla and Bharat Nagar Colony were found to be located nearby at a distance of about 200 yards. It was also found to be contiguous to Village Bahapur abouting the main Mathura Road where Ishwar Nagar Cooperative Society houses had come up. Placing reliance upon the market value of the lands in Villages Bahapur, Jogabai and Kilokari, the market value of land situated in Village Khizarabad as on 3.6.1961 was held to be at Rs. 12,500/- per bigha.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that in RFA 381/70 (Chand Behari v. Union of India) decided on 8.3.1984, market value of land situate in Village Kilokari as on 13.11.1959 determined at Rs.26,000/- per bigha. For Village Bahapur in DLF United Limited v. Union of India, , market value as on 13.11.1959 was held to be at Rs. 19,000/- per bigha. For subsequent acquisition, which took place by notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 13.11.1972, this Court in Union of India v. DLF Limited, held the market value of land situated at Village Bahapur to be at Rs. 65,000/- per bigha. For yet another acquisition, with respect to lands situate in Village Bahapur through notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 30.6.1978 this Court in Bhola Nath & Ors. v. Union of India, ,1998 VI A.D.(Delhi) 159 fixed market value at Rs. 2,000/- per sq.yards, i.e., Rs.20 lacs per bigha. Learned counsel for the appellants also placed reliance upon determination of the market value of lands situate in Villages Jasola. Jogabai and Tughlakabad on the ground that the said revenue estates are within close proximity of Village Khizarabad. For acquisition of land situate at Village Jasola, which took place by virtue of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 24.10.1961, this Court in Amar Singh v. Union of India, 26(1994) DLT 367 held the market value to be at Rs. 10,000/- per bigha. For subsequent acquisition of land of Village Jasola, which took place by notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 31.12.1976, market value was determined at Rs. 55.000/- per bigha in Bijay Singh v. Union of India, . For land situate at Jogabai acquired through notification under Section 4 dated 13.11.1959, market value was determined at Rs. 15,000/- per bigha in Delhi Simla Catholic Archdiocese v. Union of India, . For land situate in Village Tughlakabad acquired through notification under Section 4 dated 5.7.1973, market value was determined at Rs.68,000/- per bigha in Virender Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India (RFA 299/84) decided on 23.4.1991.

5. By making reference to a plan produced during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants contended that Maharani Bagh and Friends Colony are closest to Villages Khizarabad, Jogabai and Bahapur are also in close proximity. Therefore, various decisions relied upon by him would give an indication about the rising trend of market values of land in and around the locality and on that basis, it was contended (hat the appellants would be entitled for compensation for acquisition of their properly not less than Rs. 50,000/- per bigha as on 10.5.1976.

6. Reliance was also placed by learned counsel for the appellants on notification issued on 28.5.1966 by the Delhi Administration, Delhi (No.F.2(49)/65-LSG) contending that by virtue of this notification, Villages Kilokari, Khizarabad, Jogabai, Okhla, Bahapur, Tughlakabad and Jasola amongst others were urbanised.

7. The effect of urbanisation would be that the potentiality of the lands situate in Village Khizarabad as on the date of notification issued under Section 4 was to be taken as a building site.

8. We have considered the submissions made at the Bar. There is no doubt that as on 28.5.1966, Village Khizarabad, which hitherto formed part of the rural area, ceased to be as such and they stood urbanised. There is also no dispute with the proposition laid down by this Court in P.N.Singh v. Union of India (RFA 359/98) decided on 6.11.1996 that when entirety of land has been urbanised by notification, much prior at any point of time to acquisition, the land could have been used as a building site and its potentiality had to be taken into account with that in mind, but this will depend upon other circumstances apparent on record, particularly special features, if any, with respect to the acquired land.

9. We have perused the record. There is no separate evidence recorded as regards exact location of the land. Except for the observations made by the Collector Land Acquisition in his award about location of the land, no other or separate evidence was led. The Collector Land Acquisition while determining the amount of compensation payable to the claimants even discarded the sale deeds for the year 1971-72 of the same Village Khizarabad on the ground that the same pertained to land situate at a considerable distance from the land under acquisition. The land subject matter of sale deeds was level with good soil whereas the land under acquisition was "inside the Jamuna and was not very good for cultivation". It is noteworthy that the land has been acquired for the purpose of construction of pilot-cut in the reach from Nizamuddin Bridge to Okhla Weir. It was not an acquisition for any other construction activity such as a building site as is usual in case of other acquisitions in Delhi where irrespective of classification of land, acquisition has been for construction of building sites. It was incumbent and also necessary for the appellants to have led sufficient evidence on record as regards potentiality of the land. In the absence of such evidence, there is no other option except to place reliance upon what has been observed by the Collector Land Acquisition in his award that the land under acquisition was within Jamuna River and for that reason the Collector Land Acquisition discarded even the sale instances of levelled plots situate in Village Khizarabad. For similar reasons, it will not be permissible for us to rely upon the other decisions referred to by learned counsel for the appellants of the adjacent villages. We will have to place reliance upon decision in Deewan Ram Swoop's case (supra) wherein in 1961 also acquisition had taken place for similar purpose as in the instant, case and compensation was fixed at Rs. 12,500/- per bigha. It is a fact that there has been increase in market value of the land. In the absence of any other material, we presume that in this locality increase must have taken place from 1961 to 1976 at a normal pace. It will not be unreasonable to allow an increase @ 12% p.a. in order to arrive at market value. In Prakash Chand Kashyap v. Union of India, AIR 1983 Delhi 316, an escalation of 12% p.a. was considered as reasonable instead of past practice of Court in allowing escalation @ Rs. 1,000/- per bigha. In Rameshwar Solanki's & Another v. Union of India & Another, , also placing reliance on the decision in Prakash Chand Kashyap's case (supra), Divisions Bench observed that it would be appropriate to discard the past practice of this Court to give escalation @ Rs. 1,000/- per bigha and to allow escalation @ 12% p.a., which has been given following statutory provisions made by the amendments in the Act. In the absence of any other material in the instant case also, we are of the view that the market value as on 10.5.1976 can be worked out by placing reliance upon the earlier award of the Court in Deewan Ram Saroop's case (supra) and by allowing 12% p.a. escalation thereon. Otherwise also as the land was situate in Yamuna, we are of the view that the past practice of allowing escalation @ Rs. 1,000/-per bigha p.a. will not be reasonable. As such, we are of the view that the market value as on 10.5.1976 would be Rs. 35,000/- per bigha.

10. Consequently, we allow the appeal with proportionate costs, holding the appellants to be entitled to compensation @ RS. 35,000/- per bigha. Over and above the amount of compensation, the appellants are also held entitled to solatium @ 15% and interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of Collector taking over possession till date of making payment.