Tek Chand vs Union Of India (Uoi)
2000 Latest Caselaw 1157 Del

JUDGMENT

Devinder Gupta, J.

1. This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is against the judgment of learned Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 8.2.1985 in Land Acquisition Case No. 370/1981 answering a reference under Section 18 of the Act and thereby determination of the amount of compensation payable to the claimant.

2. Through notification dated 24.10.1961 issued under Section 4 of the Act, Delhi Administration expressed its intention to acquire at public expense and for public purpose, namely planned development of Delhi, 16,000 acres of land located in a number of villages. Lands falling within village revenue estate Naharpur, Delhi were also included in the said notification. Separate declarations under Section 6 of the Act were issued subsequently. First of such declaration under Section 6 was issued on 29.12.1968 with intent to acquire 134 bighas 2 biswas of land situate in village Naharpur for which ultimately the Collector on 13.12.1974 made his .Award No. 18/74-75 with respect to land measuring 30 bighas 17 biswas. Separate award No. 18-A/80-81 for remaining land was made by the Collector Land Acquisition on 25.3.1981. Another declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued by Delhi Administration on 7.12.1966 for an area measuring 1,626 bighas 15 biswas. The Collector Land Acquisition on 10.1.1979 made his award No. 35/78-79,

3. Under award No. 18/74-75 the Collector offered compensation @ Rs. 3,000/- per bigha. Entire land covered by award No. 35/78-79 was divided in two blocks, i.e. 'A' and 'B' by the Collector and compensation @ Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 2,800/- per bigha was offered respectively for the land falling in Block 'A' and Block 'B' respectively. In award No. 18-A/80-81 dated 25.3.1981, the Collector offered compensation at Rs. 3,000/- per bigha.

4. Feeling dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, claimants sought references, which were forwarded to the Reference Courts. The Reference Courts in six cases, arising out of award No. 18-A/80-81, assessed the market value at Rs. 4,000/-per bigha whereas in two other cases, arising out of the same award, fair market value was fixed at Rs. 8,000/- per bigha. In two cases, arising out of award No. 18/74-75, the Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation, holding the fair market value of land situate at village Naharpur as on 24.10.1961 to be Rs. 3,500/- per bigha, but in the third case, arising out of the said award, market value offered by the Collector was upheld, to be the fair market value. In about 37 reference cases, arising out of award No. 35/78-79, by separate judgments, the Reference Court fixed the fair market value at Rs. 4,000/- and Rs. 3,500/- per bigha respectively, for the lands falling in Block 'A' and in Block 'B'. In the remaining cases, the Reference Courts by separate decisions fixed the market value of land situate at village Naharpur at Rs. 7,000/- per bigha.

5. It would thus appear that issuance of separate declarations and making of separate awards by the Collector and answering of separate reference under Section 18 of the Act by different Presiding Officers of the Reference Courts have led to fixing different market value of various parcels of land, situate in village Naharpur and acquired through the same notification and for the same public purpose. Practically, in view of the material on record, there is hardly any difference in nature, quality, location and potentiality of the entire land of village Naharpur.

6. Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation determined by the Reference Courts, the claimants have filed appeals for further enhancement in the amount of compensation whereas only seven appeals have been filed by Union of India seeking reduction in the amount of compensation.

7. While this appeal was heard, learned counsel for the parties in other connected appeals were also heard.

8. As regards the location and potentiality of land, the Collector Land Acquisitionin his award noticed that village Naharpur is surrounded by village Mangolpur Kalanin South; Rohini and Pitampura in East; village Rithala in North and villages Sultanpuri and Mangolpur Khurd towards West. In some of the cases, the Reference Courtshave tried to compare the land situate in village Naharpur with the lands situate atPitampura whereas in some of the other cases, Naharpur was sought to be comparedwith village Badli. Yet in a few cases comparison was tried to be made with lands ofvillage Mangolpur.

9. Our attention was drawn to a decision of Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 1.7.1992 in Land Acquisition Case No. 387/87 Munshi Ram (deceased through his L.Rs. Dildar Singh v. Union of India]. By the said decision Reference Court answered the reference under Section 18 of the Act arising out of award No. 35/78-79 of village Naharpur. Market value of land situate at Naharpur was fixed at Rs. 7,000/- per bigha as on 24.10.1961, assigning cogent reasons in fixing the said market value. Inter-alia it was held that Village Naharpur was nearer to the heart of Delhi as compared to villages Badli and Rithala. Naharpur was held to be located towards North of Badli and not towards south of Badli Village. It was observed that in case one goes from inner part of Delhi towards Badli, Village Badli would be towards North. It was also noticed that the acquired land of village Naharpur was situate in between the acquired land of village Mangolpur and Pitampura. It was on Naharpur pucca road, which reflected the importance of village Naharpur being nearer to Delhi. The Reference Court in the said award followed the determination made by another Reference Court in L.A.C. No. 77/83 (Ram Kala v. Union of India) arising out of award No. 18-A/78-79 of Village Naharpur and fixed market value at Rs. 7,000/- per bigha. It was so done in Ram Kala's case on placing reliance on the decision of this Court in R.F.A. 200/88 (Bhoop Singh v. Union of India) decided on 12.12.1984 (Exhibit AA), relating to determination of compensation payable for the lands acquired in Village Rithala through the same notification issued under Section 4. On behalf of the appellant it was urged that no appeal had been preferred by Union of India against the determination of the amount of compensation in Land Acquisition Case No. 387/81 and the enhanced amount of compensation had also been paid without even reserving right to challenge the said award. As such, determination of compensation in the said case had become final and the same deserves to be made the basis for deciding all appeals.

10. Reliance was also placed on behalf of the claimants on two decisions dated 13.8.1986 in Land Acquisition Case No. 352/82 (Ramanand v. Union of India) and in LAC No. 351/82 (Teh Chand v. Union of India). By the said decisions, market value of lands situate at Village Naharpur acquired through the same notification under Section 4 and arising out of award No., 18-A/80-81 was fixed at Rs. 8,000/- per bigha. It was urged that as there has to be parity in the matter of payment of compensation for similarly situate land acquired through the same notification, the claimants also deserve to be allowed compensation @ Rs. 8,000/- per bigha. We have gone through the two decisions thoroughly and in our view, award of compensation @ Rs. 8,000/-per bigha for lands situate at Naharpur acquired through notification dated 24.10.1961 cannot be upheld. The Reference Court appears to have been misled in applying the decision of this Court in Bhoop Singh's case (supra). This Court by a common judgment decided two appeals together, i.e. R.F.A. 200/83 (Bhoop Singh v. Union of India) and R.F.A. 379/83 (Tek Chand v. Union of India). In Bhoop Singh's case, subject matter was the land of Village Badli acquired through notification dated 24.10.1961 whereas Tek Chand's case pertained to land of Village Badli acquired through notification dated 4.3.1963. In Bhoop Singh's case, market value was fixed at Rs. 7,000/- per bigha whereas in Tek Chand's case, market value was fixed at Rs. 8,000/-per bigha. Wrongly and due to some inadvertence it was thought that Rs. 8,000/- per bigha had been assessed the market value of land of village Badli acquired through notification dated 24.1.0.1961. Noticing this factual mistake, another Reference Court in L.A.C. No. 387/81 of Village Naharpur had declined to rely upon these two decisions as an instance.

11. Reference was also made as an instance pertaining to determination of compensation for acquisition of land situate in village Mangolpur, acquired through notification issued on 4.3.1963. Copy of decision of Reference Court in L.A.C. No. 276/78 (Ram Singh v. Union of India) decided on 20.8.1979 has been proved on record as Exhibit A1. Market value of land situate in village Mangolpur was assessed at Rs. 5,350/-per bigha in the said decision. However, this decision will not be relevant because of difference in the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act.

12. For the land situate in Village Mangolpur and covered by the same notification dated 24.12.1961 by which Naharpur land was also acquired, determination has been made by this Court in R.F.A. No. 49/84 (Manga Ram etc. v. Union of India) decided on 3.3.2000. Market value of all categories of land situate at Mangolpur was assessed at Rs. 6,500/-per bigha as on 24.10.1961.

13. A plan depicting the location of various villages vis-a-vis land situate in Village Naharpur has been proved on the record of L.A. case giving rise to R.F.A. No. 80/84 (Raj Singh v. Union of India). Perusal of the same lands supports the view taken by the Reference Courts in L.A.C. No. 387/81 (Munshi Ram v. Union of India), referred to above that the acquired lands of Village Naharpur were having an advantage over the lands, which were acquired in Mangolpur because of comparative proximity to Delhi. Exhibit Rl is copy of the award of Additional District Judge in L.A.C. No. 318781 arising out of award No. 35/78-79 and decided on 30.8.1983. Comparison of the proximity of land situate in Village Naharpur vis-a-vis the adjoining villages as done in this case is also fortified from the aforementioned plan. It was noticed that the lands of village Salimpur Majra Madipur of Shakurpur or village Haiderpur do not adjoin the land of Naharpur though they adjoin the lands of Pitampura on West, South and North. Western lands of Mangolpur Kalan adjoin the Eastern lands of Salimpur-Majra-Madipur. Delhi Kanjhawla road. Passes from East boundaries through lands of Pitampura and Mangolpur Kalan and thereby lands of these villages are bifurcated into Northern and Southern portions. Delhi Kanjhawla road on the extreme Eastern sector of Village Pitampura after passing through Pitampura enters Village Naharpur along with the Northern bounds of its Abadi and then proceeds to Village Rithala located on East of Naharpur-Rithala road and is also stated to be in close proximity of Naharpur Abadi.

14. A judgment of a Reference Court determining market value of land in the vicinity of the acquired land, even though not inter-parties, would be relevant piece of evidence either as an instance or otherwise from which it may be possible to find out as to what market value the acquired land would have fetched as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. In order to make the previous judgment relevant and as basis for determination of market value, evidence must be furnished that how far the said land was comparable to the acquired land.

15. In Daisy and Anr. v. The State of Kerala, , it was held that in fixing compensation for the acquired plots, the market price fixed in respect of a contiguous plot, recently acquired, can be taken into consideration and compensation fixed after comparing relative situation and importance of the plots.

16. In the State of Madras v. A.M. Nanjan and Anr., , it was held that the awards given by the Collector Land Acquisition are at least relevant material and may be in the nature of admission with regard to the value of land on behalf of the State and cannot be rejected as inadmissible for the purpose of determination of the compensation provided the land involved in the awards is comparable land and is in reasonable proximity of the acquired land. It was also held that the rates found in the said awards should be a reliable material to afford a basis to work upon the determination of compensation on a later date.

17. In Major Dhian Singh v. Union of India, also, relevancy of the valuation made in earlier case with respect to comparable lands was upheld. In Ranjit Singh and Ors. v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, , the submission made on behalf of the claimants for allowing higher market value for claimants' land acquired subsequent to the earlier acquisition where market value had already been fixed, was upheld. In the said case under the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act published on 23.12.1974, market rate had been determined. For the similar lands, which were acquired by subsequent notifications issued and published on 3.12.1975, Supreme Court held that it would be just and reasonable to enhance the market value by Rs. 3,000/- per acre having regard to the period of more than one year, which had elapsed from the time of earlier acquisition to subsequent acquisition and the general increase of land prices during that period. Thus the earlier decision of the Court fixing market value was considered to be a relevant piece of evidence in determining the amount of compensation.

18. In . Printers House Pvt. Ltd. v. Mst. Saiyadan (Deceased) by L.Rs. and Ors., , it was held that when there are several comparable sales or awards pertaining to different lands, what is required of the Court is to choose that sale or award relating to a land, which closely or nearly compares with the plot of land, the market value of which, it has to determine and to take the price of land of such sale or award as the basis for determining the market value of the land under consideration.

19. Para-17 of the said decision reads:-

"If the sale is found to be a genuine one or the award is an accepted one, and the sale or award pertains to land which was sold or acquired at about the time of publication of preliminary notification under the Act in respect of the acquired land, the market value of which has to be determined, the Court has to mark the location and the features (advantages and disadvantages) of the land covered by the sale or the award. This process involves the marking by Court of the size, shape, tenure potentiality etc. of the land. Keeping in view the various factors marked or noticed respecting the land covered by the sale or award, as the case may be, presence or absence of such factors, degree of presence or degree of absence of such factors in the acquired land the market value of which has to be determined, should be seen. When so seen, if it is found that the land covered by the sales or award, as the case may be, is almost identical with the acquired land under consideration, the land under the sales or the market value determined for the land in the award could be taken by the Court as the 'price basis' for determining the market value of the acquired land under consideration. If there are more, comparable sale or awards of the same type, no difficulty arises since the 'price basis' to be got from them would be common. But, difficulty arises when the comparable sale or awards are not of the same kind and when each of them furnish a different 'price basis'. This difficulty cannot be overcome by averaging the prices fetched by all the comparable sales or awards for getting the 'price basis' on which the market value of the acquired land could be determined. It is so, for the obvious reason that such 'price basis' may vary largely depending even on comparable sales or awards. Moreover, 'price basis' got by averaging comparable sales or awards which are not of the same kind, cannot be a correct reflection of the price which the willing seller would have got from the willing buyer, if the acquired land had been sold in the market. For instance, in the case on hand, there are there claimants. The plots of their acquired land, which arc five in numbers, are not similar, in that, their location, size, shape greatly vary. One plot of land of one claimant and another plot of another claimant appear to be one type. Another plot of land of one of them appears to be of a different type. Yet another plot of the second of them appears to be different. In so far as the third claimant's plot of land is concerned, it appears to be altogether different from the rest. Therefore, if each of the claimants were to sell her/his respective plots of land in the open market, it is impossible to think that they would have got a uniform rate for their lands. The position cannot be different if the comparable sales or awards when relate to different lands. Therefore, when there are several comparable sales or awards pertaining to different lands, what is required of the Court is to choose that sales or award relating to a land which closely or nearly compares with the plot of land the market value of which it has to determine, and to take the price of land of such sales award as the basis for determining the market value of the land under consideration."

20. In K. Periasami v. Sub-Tehsildar (Land Acquisition), , Supreme Court emphasized the need of parity being maintained in fixing same market value when large extent of land is acquired by the same notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. In The Special Land Acquisition Officer and Anr. v. Sri Siddappa Omanna Tumari and Ors., , it was held that when the Collector had already made an award in respect of some land covered by the same notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, all the persons interested in those lands are entitled to receive similar amount of compensation whose lands are also notified for acquisition under the same notification. The Apex Court further held that evidentiary value of an award made by the Collector under Sub-section(2) of Section 11 of the Act as regards market value of the land covered by notification under Section 4 of the Act cannot be ignored altogether from consideration.

21. Having noticed the fact that determination of the market value of land situate in Village Naharpur at Rs. 7,000/- per bigha made in L.A.C. No. 387/81 Munshi Ram v. Union of India covered by notification dated 24.10.1961 and acquired for same public purpose has not been challenged by the respondent and the compensation so enhanced stands paid, we are of the view that in the absence of any other evidence that the other lands situated in village Naharpur were in any manner inferior or not comparable to the land in Munshi Ram's case, there is no reason why there should be any parity in the matter of payment of compensation for lands acquired through the same notification. We have already assigned our reasons of not placing reliance upon determination of the market value at Rs. 8,000/- per bigha, as made L.A.C. No. 351/82 and L.A.C. No. 352/82, but are fortified in our view in placing reliance on the determination of market value made at Rs. 7,000/- per bigha in Munshi Rain's case (supra). Determination of compensation at Rs. 6,5000/- per bigha for Village Mangolpur in Mange Ram's case (supra) cannot be made applicable for Naharpur lands for the reason that as per the material brought to our notice, Village Naharpur definitely enjoyed better advantageous position as compared to Village Mangolpur and difference of Rs. 500/- per bigha in the market value is a reasonable amount for the said advantageous situation of the land situate at Village Naharpur. Accordingly, we hold that the fair market value of all categories of land situate at village Naharpur as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act would be Rs. 7,000/- per bigha irrespective of the fact that different declarations were made and Collector made separate awards.

22. In some cases, additional amount calculated @ 12% p.a. on the market value from the date of publication of notification under Section 4 Sub-section(1) till the date of award of Collector or the date of taking over possession of the land, whichever is earlier, has been allowed by the Reference Courts under Section 23(1)(A) of the Act. This could not have been allowed since the award of the Collector was made prior to enforcement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act (Act No. 68 of 1984). Supreme Court in K.S. Paripooman v. State of Kerala and Ors., reiterated the position that additional compensation is not payable under Section 23(1)(A) of lilts Act where the award is made by Collector prior to enforcement of the Amendment Act.

23. Interest under Section 4(3) of Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1967 wherever it is payable, will payable from the date of expiry of three years of the dale of notification under Section 4 of the Act to the date on which amount of compensation awarded by the Collector was tendered or paid and not for any period beyond that.

24. Consequently, the appeal is allowed with proportionate costs. Judgement of Reference Court is modified to the extent aforementioned. The claimants are held entitled to compensation on the market value of Rs. 7,000/- per bigha. Over the above the amount of compensation, the claimants will be paid solatium and interest on the enhanced amount of compensation as per the award of the Reference Court subject to the aforementioned observations as regards additional amount and interest under Subsection (3) of Section 4 of Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1967.