Shri Chuni Lal & Others And Shri Mir ... vs Union Of India
2001 Latest Caselaw 169 Del

ORDER

B.A. Khan, J.

1. Both these appeals being identical on facts and law are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Appellants' land was acquired in village Asalatpur Khadar pursuant to Section 4 Notification dated 20.6.1966. LAC divided this land into two blocks and awarded Rs.3,000/- per bigha for block A and Rs.2500/- for block B. Appellants sought reference and the ADJ enhanced the compensation by Rs.1100/- per bigha in block A and Rs.1600/- in block B. They filed RFAs and first Appellate court awarded compensation to them at the rate of Rs.7000/- per bigha with 15% solarium and 6% interest on the enhanced compensation from the date of dis-possession till payment.

3. Appellants have now filed these appeals seeking higher compensation. They are claiming Rs.,12,500/- per bigha in LPA No. 139/80 and Rs.15,000/- per bigha in the other appeal. Their case is that a DB of this Court had already enhanced the compensation to Rs.8,000/- per bigha for the land acquired in village Asalatpur Khaddar pursuant to Section 4 Notification dated 24.10.61 in RFA 224/68 decided on 20.6.1993 and they were naturally entitled to higher compensation as their land in this village was acquired subsequently after over 5 years vide Section 4 Notification dated 20.6.66, given regard to rise in land prices in the area during the relevant period.

4. It is submitted by Mr. Singh, Sr. counsel representing appellants that this Court had taken judicial notice of such rise in prices and allowed escalation by different methods. In some cases it had adopted practice of granting additional amount of Rs.1,000/- per bigha and in others it had allowed 10 to 12% increase over the market price fixed for last acquisition to take care of the time difference. He supported this by relying upon AIR 1988 Delhi 316 (Prakash Chand Kashyap v. U.O.I.), 1995 DLT 410 (Rameshwar Solanki Vs. UOI), (Tindey Vs. UOI), and (Ranjit Singh & others v. Union Territory of Chandigarh). He did not, however, press in service any other factor or circumstance to ask for enhancement in compensation.

5. The short question that arises in the circumstances, therefore, is whether any escalation was required to be granted to provided for the time gap by taking judicial notice of a claimed increase in land prices during the relevant period and if so at what rate and by adopting what norm and yardstick.

6. We have gone through the judgments cited at the Bar but it is required to be pointed out with respect that none of these prescribe any specific formula or guideline which could be uniformly applied to enhance the compensation amount in case of a time gap between the two acquisitions. Some judgments have allowed the increase @ Rs.1000/- per bigha and others at rates ranging from 5 to 12% p.a and few others by granting a lumpsum amount, based on the common knowledge of rising land prices in Delhi over the years. In one case (Kashyap Vs. UOI), this Court had even taken cue from Section 23(1-A) of Land Acquisition Act enacted in 1984 requiring the court to award a 12% p.a. increase as additional compensation to support the grant of increased amount.

7. What emerges, therefore, is that this Court had recognised the rising trend of land prices in Delhi during the relevant year because of the all round development in the city and enforcement of Master plan etc. In fact in one of the cases (DLF Vs. UOI) this Court observed that it was a matter of common knowledge that land prices had risen by leaps and bounds progressively since 1950. As such there is hardly any scope for entertaining any doubt in this regard or to turn the clock back and to assume that land prices had remained frozen during the period.

8. Even so, it becomes a difficult exercise to gather the exact quantum of such increase and to determine its exact rate year by year. The problem is compounded by the failure of parties to substantiate such increase by any supporting material. It naturally becomes a guess game in the circumstances and perhaps that is why the judgments of this Court could not evolve a uniform method and approach alternating between the first principle of Rs.1000/- per bigha to 5%-12% p.a. increase or a lumpsum enhancement.

9. We consequently find ourselves at odds to prescribe an exact barometer gauge the specific rate of yearly increase in the land prices for the relevant period in the face of of a varied and at times conflicting precedent and in the absence of any material before us. It is true that Section 23(1-A) of LA accords a statutory recognition of sorts to 12% p.a. increase which the court was required to award but it was applicable from 1984 only and could not operate retrospectively to cater to the period in question. It would therefore only constitute factor and guide Along with the judgment of this court to provide for an increase in the rate.

10. We are, therefore, left with no option but to follow the middle path, after giving due regard to the sipirit of Sec. 23(1-A) of the Act and the judgments of the Court. While doing so, it becomes important to ensure that any increase or escalation granted was fair and reasonable in the circumstances. We have awarded an increase of Rs.2,000/- p.b. to bring the total to Rs.10,000/- p.b. for the land acquired in the same village and with reference to same Notification in Mauji Vs. UOI (LPA No. 214/80) decided on 18.1.2001. We would want to stick to this rate for the sake of uniformity and to avoid any further inconsistency in the matter.

11. These appeals are accordingly allowed and appellants are awarded at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per bigha with 15% solarium and 6% interest on the enhanced amount from the date of dispossession till payment. Respondent is directed to satisfy the remaining award within six months.