Rattan Lal And Ors. vs Union Of India
2001 Latest Caselaw 1250 Del

JUDGMENT

Devinder Gupta, J.

1. Appeals preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition ct, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") by the claimants are for further enhancement in the amount of compensation. Appeals by Union of India are for reduction in the amount of compensation.

2. Land acquired through two different notifications under Section 4 of the Act on 17.11.1980 and 24.11.1981 is the subject matter of the appeals. On 17.11.1980 by notification issued under Section 4 of the Act land situate in village Dallupura was sought to be acquired at public expense for public purpose, namely, Planned Development of Delhi. It was followed by declaration under Section 6 of the Act, which was made on 29.9.1981. The Collector Land Acquisition made his award No.79/82-83 on 9.3.1983 offering amount of compensation to the claimants at a rate of Rs.12,500/- per bigha.

3. Another notification dated 24.11.1981 was issued under Section 4 of the Act notifying more land situate in village Dallupura for being acquired at public expenses for the same public purpose for which declaration was made on 25.5.1985. The Collector Land Acquisition made his award No.6/85-86 on 4.5.1986 offering compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per bigha. Felt aggrieved with the amount of compensation offered to them, the claimants sought references.

4. The reference Courts answered the references by separate awards. In one set of cases, the reference court held the claimants entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.13,500/- per bigha with respect to the land, which was acquired through notification dated 17.11.1980. In the remaining cases, in which land was acquired through the same notification dated 17.11.1980 the reference courts enhanced the amount of compensation holding the fair market value to be Rs.76,550/- per bigha. Only in one case in which land was acquired through second notification dated 24.11.1981, the reference court answered the reference holding the claimants entitled to compensation also at the rate of Rs.76,550/- per bigha.

5. Claimants in the said case in which land was acquired through notification dated 17.11.1980 have preferred an appeal (RFA.No.432/94) seeking further enhancement in the amount of compensation. Separate appeal (RFA No.423/94) has been filed by Union of India in that case seeking reduction in the amount of compensation. Other appeals pertain to the land, which was acquired through notification dated 17.11.1980.

6. As noticed above, 32 appeals are those in which the claimants have sought enhancement in the amount of compensation. The Reference Court allowed compensation at the rate of Rs.76,550/- per bigha. It is significant to note that only 5 appeals have been preferred by Union of India seeking reduction in the amount of compensation. Thus there are only 6 appeals preferred by Union of India seeking reduction in the amount of compensation urging that the compensation ought to have been allowed only at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per bigha. Thus the challenge in six appeals is for the amount of compensated awarded over and above Rs.30,000/- per bigha.

7. At the very outset, we may observe that the very act of Union of India in not questioning the determination of the amount of compensation in the other cases in which compensation has been determined in favor of the claimants at the rate of Rs.76,550/-per bigha is sufficient to dismiss its six appeals. This act of Union of India would lead to drawing of an inference that in those case where appeals have not been filed it accepts the fair market value at Rs.76,550/- per bigha. By this act Union of India will be precluded from making challenge that the market value is less than Rs.76,550/- per bigha. It will thus be presumed that in cases where appeals have not been filed, where land is similarly situate having same and similar potentiality, having been acquired through the same notification for the same public purpose, the Government accepts valuation at one particular rate i.e. Rs.76,550/- per bigha. The Government will be deemed to have accepted the award or at least a fact that the same was the fair market rate of land as on 17.11.1980 and for that reason the six appeals filed by Union of India must fail and are hereby dismissed.

8. Collector Land Acquisition has in his award noticed the topography of the acquired land situate in village Dullupura. He noticed that a puce road from Hindon Canal to Noida Industrial Complex (U.P.) passes through the North side of the land under acquisition. Towards south-east a puce road also divides the territorial boundaries of village Dallupura and Harola, District Bulundshar, U.P. In the South the boundaries of village Chilla-Saroda-Banger touches the land under acquisition and Hindon Canal passes through the Western side of the land. He also noticed that being adjacent to NOIDA, a big industrial complex in U.P. the importance of land had gone up and its potentiality for housing or for factory purposes had also increased. He also noticed that the land under acquisition was bounded by NOIDA Industrial Complex, puce road, Hindon Canal and village Abadi of Dallupura. Therefore, it could fetch higher market value. On three sides the land was found to be bounded with puce roads. In his award the Collector also noticed that some area of village Kondli was also acquired earlier through notification dated 8.4.1979. Another area in the same village had been acquired prior thereto in April, 1973. The Collector in his award No.80/82-83 of village Kondli, which was acquired through notification dated 17.1.1980 made observations regarding situation and potential value of land of village Kondli vis-a-vis village Dallupura and fixed the market value of land in village Kondli by relying on the pieces of evidence relatable to village Dallupura after observing that the land of village Dallupura is better located and had better potentiality than the acquired land in village Kondli. In Award No.80/82-83 the Collector Land Acquisition compared the land of villages Dallupura with that of Kondli as follows:-

"In order to arrive at the fair and reasonable market value of the land under acquisition prevailing at the time of notification under Section 4 i.e. 17.11.80, we can take help of sale transaction dated 14.2.74 involving the land bearing khasra No.s 221 and 2228 total measuring 5 bighas for Rs.30,000/- and average of which comes to Rs.6,000/- per bigha. The area of above transaction is located towards the North of village abadi of Kondli and is that part of the present scheme of acquisition. Since then this area has gained great importance by coming up of NOIDA Industrial and residential complex of U.P. which is quite adjacent to the land under acquisition. Now this land has special adoptability for housing or factory purposes so it could also not be a safe base to arrive at correct and fair market value of the land under acquisition. Some interested persons also filed a sale transaction pertaining to khasra No.294/1, measuring 2 bighas 14 biswas for Rs.35,000/- on 18.7.1980 in the adjacent village of Dallupura. the average sale per bigha comes to Rs.12,962.96 P though the involved in the sale transaction is situated above one K.M. far from the land under acquisition, yet both the land has similarity in fertilizers and nature only slight difference is of potentiality of building purpose, the land of village Dallupura has gained good importance of coming up NOIDA complex in U.P. and building activities of D.D.A. in village Chilla Saroda Bangar. But it could be a guiding factor in arriving at the fair and correct market value of the land under acquisition."

9. The reference court by the impugned award in LAC No.511/93 out of which RFA 338/94 has arisen, while determining the market value, found as a matter of fact that the claimants land is similar to the land of village Kondli and Gharoli in terms of potentiality, quality and situation, which was acquired through notification dated 17.1.1980. The three villages fall in a straight line in close proximity to each other touching the boundary of one village with other. However, the reference court based his award by placing reliance upon another award rendered in LAC No.142/90 (Ex.A.21), which reference had arisen out of award No.80/82-83 of village Kondli in which land had been acquired through notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 17.11.1980 for the same public purpose. He also placed reliance upon another award in LAC No.144/90 relating to village Gharoli (Ex.A-21A) in which also the land had been acquired under Section 4 of the Act through the same notification issued on 17.11.1980 and for the same public purpose. In both these cases compensation had been awarded at the rate of Rs.76,550/- per bigha. Relying upon these two awards, the reference court, after having concluded that the lands were similarly situate having same potentiality also proceeded to hold the air market value at Rs.76,550/- per bigha for all categories of land situate in village Dallupura .

10. Claimants have based their entire case for further enhancement in the amount of compensation on a judgment of this Court in R.F.A.601/92 ( Anil Kumar Sharma and Ors. v. Union of India ), reported as 85 (2000) D.L.T.825. This Court held the fair market value of land situate in village Kondli to be at the rate of Rs.345/- per sq. yard as on 17.11.1980 and 25.2.1981. Three cases were disposed of by a common judgment delivered in Anil Kumar Sharma's case (supra). Two appeals were filed by Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, namely, RFA Nos.601 and 603 of 1992. Cross objections were filed by Bali Ram Sharma (RFA.604/92). Land was situate in village Kondli and was acquired through two separate notifications issues on 17.11.1980 and 25.2.1981. In the cases in hand the land situate in village Dallupura was acquired through two notifications issued on 17.11.1980 and on 24.11.1981. Claimants uged that since the Land Acquisition Collector had assessed same market value for the lands situate at villages Kondli and Dallupura and the reference court also made determination on the same reasonings by allowing the same market value, which had been allowed for the lands situate at village Kondli, therefore,e there is no reason why the claimants/appellants be not paid amount of compensation at the same rate of Rs.345/- per sq. yard, if not more. It was urged that the land situate at village Dallupura was far superior than the land situate at village Kondli in all respects. Land was bounded by puce roads, Hindon Canal and village abadi of village Dallupura. Land of village Dallupura as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act had gained importance with the coming up of NOIDA complex in U.P. Building activities of Delhi Development Authority in village Chilla Saroda Bangar Being this the admitted position compensation deserves to be enhanced. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, by placing reliance heavily on the decision of this Court in Karan Singh v. Union of India urged that Karan Singh and others had preferred appeal to this Court seeking further enhancement in the amount of compensation. Subject matter int he said case was the determination of compensation payable for lands situate in village Gharoli acquired through notification dated 17.11.1980. Thus court in that case allowed compensation at the rate of Rs.76,550/- per bigha. Award of the reference court Ex.A-21A was that in Karan Singh's case (supra), which was considered in the impugned award by the reference court. Learned counsel for the respondents urge that the decision of this Court was affirmed by Supreme Court in Karan Singh and Ors. v. Union of India . Thus rate of village Gharoli thus having finally been determined by Division Bench of this Court and having been affirmed by Supreme Court, it can safely be said that as on 17.11.1980 the fair market rate of land of village Bharoli was Rs.76,550/- per bigha. Thus there is no reason for further enhancement being allowed in favor of the appellants merely on the ground that for village Kondli compensation has been assessed by this Court at Rs.345/- per sq.yard. He tried to distinguish the decision in Anil Kumar Sharma's case (supra) contending that determination in Anil Kumar Sharma's case (supra) was made on the basis of sale instance of village Jhilmil Thairpur, which was far away from village Dallupura.

11. We have given our due consideration to the submissions made at the bar. There is no dispute that the three villages adjoin each other. Bharoli lies toward North East side of village Dallupura and Kondli. Determination of the market value, in so far as village Gharoli is concerned was earlier in point of time when Anil Kumar Sharma's case (supra) had not yet been decided and needless to add that in Anil Kumar Sharma's case (supra) decision of this Court in Karan Singh's case (supra) though was referred but was not relied upon either by the claimants or by the respondents. Karan Singh's case (supra) was decided by this Court on 11.8.1994. The same finally stood decided by Supreme Court in 1997 whereas Anil Kumar Sharma's case was decided on 21.7.2000. We have gone through the two decisions, namely, one on which reliance is placed by the appellants and the other on which reliance is placed by the respondent. In addition to the material, which had been considered in Karan Singh's case (supra) additional material had been brought on record in the case of Anil Kumar Sharma's case (supra), which were duly taken note of. Determination was not made solely on the basis of the material, which was available in Karan Singh's case (supra). One of the instance relied upon in Anil Kumar Sharma's case (supra) was the sale pertaining to the land in village Kondli itself wherein fair market rate as on 1976 in village Kondli was found to have been in the vicinity of Rs.208/- per sq. yard. Instance pertaining to village Dallupura were also duly taken note of and it was observed that village Dallupura, though is not far away but the lands of village Dallupura were comparable to the acquired land in Anil Kumar Sharma's case (supra) and ought to have been taken as the base for determination of the market value payable for the lands of village Kondli. Schedule of rate as notified by Government of India, Ministery of Works Housing and Urban Development were also taken note of. Taking into consideration the potentiality, location and other relevant factors in Anil Kumar Sharma's case (supra) it was held that the fair market of land situate at village Kondli as on 17.11.1980 and 25.2.1981 was at the rate of Rs.345/- per sq. yard. It is not disputed that till date decision of this Court rendered in Anil Kumar Sharma's case (supra) holds good. As such, there is no reason why Anil Kumar Sharma's case (supra) be not relied upon since we fully agree with the reasonings adopted in Anil Kumar Sharma's case (supra) and in our view that must be guiding factors in determining the amount of compensation in the instance case. There are other reasons also in doing so.

12. In Krapa Rangiah v. Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition it was held that when higher rate is awarded by High Court in a subsequent claim for adjoining land acquired under the same notification under which the land of claimant was acquired, area being comparable and situation being same in both cases, same rate for acquisition of land must be awarded. In para 3 of the judgment, reason has been assigned that the area being comparable, the situation also being the same and all the plots having been acquired under the self same notification for Housing Scheme same rate of compensation should be awarded to all the claimants. In other words, parity in the amount of compensation, when lands are acquired in the same village and the adjoining village, same being comparable, the situation also being same and similar and area having same potentiality, deserves to be maintained. Not maintaining parity in the matter of paying compensation when land is acquired by the State would amount to discrimination.

13. In Nand Ram and Ors. v. The State of Haryana J.T.1988 (4) S.C. 260 it was held that the State cannot refuse to pay, in respect of lands acquired under the same notification, similar compensation as is awarded to the land owner, whose similarly situated lands had been acquired under the same notification for the same purpose by the notification of the same date.

14. Same principles were again applied by Supreme Court in CA.3538/90 and in Civil Appeal arising in SLP(C).10188/85 and 9027-85 by a common order passed in Civil Appeal No.1667-85/83 ( The Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Naryanaswamappa (dead) through Lrs. and Ors. ) on 28.9.1994. In those appeals question had arisen about payment of compensation for land acquired in village Ghazipur. Village Ghazipur was held to be adjoining to village Karkardooma. Noticing the rates at which compensation had been allowed to the claimants whose lands were situate in village Karkardooma, as was determined by Supreme Court in Madan Lal Thapar v. Union of India, Civil Appeals No.3842-43/82 decided on 29.11.1991, Supreme court ordered compensation to be paid at the same rate to the claimants whose lands were situated in village Bhazipur, which had been acquired for same public purpose under the same notification on the ground that lands were comparable, situation are same and land had been acquired under the same notification for same public purpose.

15. This Court has also followed the same principle of maintaining parity in the matter of awarding compensation, when it is noticed that under the same notification land is acquired in adjoining villages. In Mangtoo & Mangoo v. Union of India and Ors. it was held that when two revenue estates or villages are contiguous to each other having same and similar location and potentiality, there is no reason by not allowing the same market value to the claimants especially when no material is brought on record that there is any distinguishing feature or any reason that why different compensation be allowed.

16. The Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in Bhag Singh and Ors. v. Union territory of Chandigarh has reiterated the principle that the State is bound to pay to the claimants compensation on the basis of the market value of the land acquired and once it is held in a particular case that the market value is higher, there is no reason why the other claimants should be denied benefit of the payment of market value so determined. To deny this benefit to the claimants would tantamount to permitting the State Government to acquire the land of the claimants on payment of less than the true market value. In other words, paying less amount of compensation to the claimants than the actual market value and allowing it to some other claimants would be discriminatory.

17. In view of what has been discussed above, we are of the view that in the absence of any other material brought to our notice, the claimants are entitled to compensation, if not, higher than at least at the rate of Rs.345/- per sq. yard, as has been allowed by the Court in Anil Kumar Sharma's case (supra). Consequently, the appeals of claimants are allowed with proportionate coasts. The Claimants are held entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.345/- per sq. yard irrespective of classification of land. Decree sheet will be drawn, subject to the claimants making good deficiency of court fee, if any, within a period of four weeks from today. In addition to the enhanced amount of compensation at the aforementioned rate, the claimants will be paid solarium at the rate of 30% on the enhanced amount of compensation and additional amount of 12% on the market value from the date of publication of notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act from the date of award or the date of Collector taking possession, whichever is earlier. Claimants shall also be paid interest at the rate of 9% p.a. for a period of one year and thereafter at the rate of 15% p.a. till the date of payment, on the enhanced amount of compensation. In case interest is held payable on solarium by the Supreme Court in the reference, which has been made in Kapur Chand Jain (dead) and Ors. v. State Government of H.P. and others , the claimants will also be paid such interest. Appeals of Union of India stand dismissed.