Dlf Universal Electric Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi)
2000 Latest Caselaw 1268 Del

JUDGMENT

M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal which is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 1st May, 1980 in RFA 406/72 and RFA 413/72 relates to the appellant's claim for enhancement of compensation with regard to acquisition of its land in Village Dabri.

2. Appellant's land measuring 347 bighas and 10-1/2 biswas in Village Dabri, Delhi was notified for acquisition vide notification dated 24.10.1961 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The land Acquisition Collector while assessing the market value of the acquired land covered by the aforesaid notification divided the land into three blocks and awarded compensation @Rs. 1,000 per bigha, Rs. 800 per bigha and Rs. 600 per bigha for blocks A, B and C respectively. On a reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned Additional District Judge disapproved the said classification of the land made by the Collector and awarded enhanced compensation @Rs. 4,000 per bigha. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the learned Additional District Judge, the appellant preferred regular appeal before the learned Single Judge, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Hence this appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously urged that for the acquired land in the adjoining village of Nangal Raya, the claimants were awarded compensation @Rs. 6200 per bigha and, as such, the appellant is also entitled to the same amount of compensation. He further contended that there should be uniformity in the matter of grant of compensation and the learned Single Judge committed a grave error in depriving the appellant of the compensation which he was entitled to under the law. Rejecting the said contention of the appellant, the learned Single Judge has held that the lands acquired in Village Nangal Raya and the appellant's land are not Similarly situated and further the market rate prevailing in Nangal Raya cannot be treated as an index of the market price of the land prevailing in village Dabri. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant deserved to be awarded the same rate of compensation as it was awarded to the claimants of village Nangal Raya does not hold much water. In this context, the following observations of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Kanwar Singh v. Union of India, , have become indispensable.

"The contention of the appellants' counsel that the appellants deserved to be awarded the same rate of compensation as it was awarded to the claimants of Villages Masoodpur and Mahipalpur, in the present facts and circumstances of the case, is not tenable. If we go by the compensation awarded to the claimants of the adjoining village, it would not lead to the correct assessment of market value of the land acquired in Village Rangpuri. For example village "A" adjoins village 'B', village 'B' adjoins village 'C', village 'C adjoins village 'D', so on and so forth and in that process, the entire Delhi would be covered. Generally there would be different situation and potentiality of the land situated in two different villages unless it is proved that the situation and potentiality of the land in two different villages are the same."

4. In the instant case, it appears that no evidence has been adduced to prove that the situation and potentiality of the lands in villages Nangal Raya and Dabri are the same. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is entitled to higher rate of compensation as the land in question abuts the main road. We are not impressed by the said submission. In Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer v. L. Kamalamma, , it was held that :-

"When a land is acquired which has the potentiality of being developed into an urban land, merely because some portion of it abuts the main road, higher rate of compensation should be paid while in respect of the lands on the interior side it should be at lower rate may not stand to reason because when sites are formed those abutting the main road may have its advantages as well as disadvantages. Many a discerning customer may prefer to stay in the interior and far away from the main road and may be willing to pay a reasonably higher price for that site."

5. Another reason why the learned Single Judge declined to assess compensation @ Rs. 6,200 per bigha was that three judgments relating to village Dabri were available for determining the market value of the lands acquired in village Dabri and as such, there was no need to rely on the sale instances or judgments relating to village Nangal Raya. In Karan Singh and Ors. v. Union of India, , it was held that previous judgments of courts in land acquisition cases can be relied upon as a good piece of evidence for determining the market value of the land acquired under certain circumstances. The learned Additional District Judge as well as the learned Single Judge assessed the market value of the land in question at Rs. 4000 per bigha. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that the compensation assessed by the learned Additional District Judge and confirmed by the learned Single Judge does not reflect the true market value of the land on the date of notification dated 24.10.1961 issued under Section 4 of the Act. Thus according to us, the judgment under appeal is neither perverse nor illegal and does not call for any interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.