Shri Sohan Lal And Anothers vs Union Of India
2001 Latest Caselaw 269 Del

ORDER

M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.

1. These Letters Patent appeals are directed against the judgments dated 12th October, 1979 and 15th October, 1979 of the Learned Single Judge of this Court by which market value of land of the appellants acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (for short 'the Act') has been determined on common materials and considerations. They are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Pursuant to the notification dated 3rd September, 1957 issued under Section 4 of the Act, land of the appellants (LPA Nos. 109/80, 114/80 & 115/80) in village Shakurpur was acquired. After dividing the acquired land into four categories, the Collector fixed the market value at Rs.2850/-, Rs.2000/-, Rs.1000/- and Rs.500/- per bigha respectively. Appellants not having accepted the offer contained in the award, sought for a reference under Section 18 of the Act to the Additional District Judge in proceedings pursuant to which the Additional District Judge enhanced the market value to Rs.4,500/- per bigha of the land falling in Block 'A', Rs. 4,000/- per bigha falling in block 'B' and Rs.3,500/- per bigha of the land falling in Block 'C'. Not satisfied with the enhancement of the compensation, the appellants filed separate appeals seeking further enhancement of compensation which were dismissed in terms of the judgment passed in RFA 95/67 dated 12th October, 1979.

3. Pursuant to the notification dated 13th November, 1959, issued under Section 4 of the Act, land of the appellants (LPA Nos.67/80, 77/80 and 224/81) of village Shakurpur was acquired. The Collector by his award dated 15th June, 1964 categorised the lands in following blocks and fixed the market value as under:-

"Block A Rs.3500/- per bigha.

Block A-1 Rs.3000/- per bigha.

Block A-2               Rs.2000/-  per bigha.
Block B   Rs.3000/-  per bigha.
Block B-1   Rs.2250/-  per bigha.
Block B-2   Rs.1250/-  per bigha.
Block C-1   Rs.1600/-  per bigha.
Block C-2   Rs.1000/-  per bigha." 

 

4. The appellants not having accepted the offer contained in the said award sought for a reference under Section 18 of the Act to the Court of Additional District Judge in proceedings pursuant to which the learned Additional District Judge enhanced the market value of the acquired land to Rs.7500/- per bigha. Being dissatisfied with the said enhancement, the appellants filed separate appeals before the learned Single Judge. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge determined the market value of the lands acquired under various notifications as under:-

5. "For notification dated 13.11.1959 Rs.7,500/- per bigha

6. For notification dated 5th March, 1960, Rs.8,000/- per bigha

7. For notification dated 24th October, 1961 Rs.8,000/- per bigha.

8. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants filed present appeals seeking enhancement of compensation of the acquired land.

In LPA No.77/80, the appellants filed an application (CM No.69/2001) for substitution of legal representatives of appellant No.2, who died during pendency of the Appeal. By the application (CM No.70/2001), the appellants seek condensation of delay in filing the application for substitution of the legal representatives of deceased appellant No.2. The application (CM No.70/2001) is allowed and the delay in filing the application for substitution of legal representatives is condoned. The application (CM No.69/2001) is also allowed and the legal representatives of the deceased appellant No.2 are allowed to be brought on record. Necessary corrections be made in the Registry and the amended memo of Appeal be filed within a week from the date of this order.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the estimate of the proper market value of the acquired land has not received the requisite attention both before the learned Additional District Judge and the learned Single Judge. He also submitted that the courts below had adopted an erroneous approach all along by treating the acquired land as an agriculture land governed by the Delhi Land Reforms Act inasmuch as they have not taken into consideration its potentialities which could have resulted in higher compensation. He further submitted that in some cases, the Court has awarded higher compensation in respect of certain land of Chowki Mubarakabad and contended that the same norm should be applied to the present case also. Reliance was also placed on certain sale transactions of smaller plots for assessing the market value of the acquired lands. It has to be borne-in-mind that the determination of market value of a piece of land with potentialities for urban use is an intricate exercise which calls for collection and collation of diverse economic criteria.

11. In Chiman Lal Hargovind Das v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, , it was held that a reference under Section 18 of the Act is not an appeal against the award and the Court cannot take into account the material relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer in his award unless the same material is produced and proved before the Court. In this context, a reference may also be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Periyar & Pareekanni Rubber Ltd. v. State of Kerala, , which lays down that the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer forms an offer and it is for the claimant to adduce relevant and material evidence to establish that on the date of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act the acquired land was capable of fetching higher market value and the amount offered by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate and he proceeded on a wrong promise or principle. On the contentions urged at the hearing, the question arises for consideration is: whether the estimate of the market value of the acquired land is unreasonably low and is arrived at ignoring the evidence on record and settled principles of valuation?

12. In the instant case, the claimants have filed copies of sale deeds regarding sale of plots in the colonies nearby known as Raja Park and Shanti Nagar in 1956 at rates ranging from Rs.9/- and Rs.15/- per square yard. The learned Additional District Judge and the learned Single Judge declined to take these sale into consideration on the ground that they are not relevant in determining the market price of the appellants' acquired agriculture land which had no potentialities as a building site. It appears that neither vendor nor vendee or any person conversant with the sale was examined in the trial court. Consequently such a sale transaction cannot be relied upon for fixing market value of the land under acquisition. [ Mehta Ravindrai Ajitrai v. State of Gujrat, ]. Moreover, the alleged sale transactions related to a very small plots and so they cannot form real basis for valuation of huge tracts of land as they too are not comparable properties. ( The Collector of Lakhimpur v. Bhuban Chandra Dutta, ; Mirza Nausherwan Khan and another v. The Collector (Land Acquisition), Hyderabad, ; Smt. Padma Uppal etc. v. State of Punjab, ; Smt. Kausalya Devi Bogra and others etc. v. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad and another, and Munnalal Shivdin Jaiswal and another v. State of Maharashtra and others, ), On the question of potential value of the lands involved, there is not an iota of legal evidence in the present case suggesting that the lands were likely to be in demand for any other purpose.

13. Eliminating these sale transactions, there remain judgments of the Reference Court regarding determination of compensation of land of village Chowki Mubarakabad, which is adjacent to the village Shakurpur. In Bhag Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, , it was held that a judgment of a court in a land acquisition case determining the market value of a land in the vicinity of the acquired land could be admitted in evidence either as an instance or one from which the market value of the acquired land could be deduced or inferred. But the claimants are not entitled to the same rate of compensation that was awarded to the claimants of the adjoining villages, unless it is proved that the situation and potentiality of the land in two different villages are the same. In this context, we may usefully excerpt the following observations made in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kanwar Singh and others v. Union of India, :-

"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............"

14. In the present case, the claimants did not endeavor to adduce any evidence to show that the acquired land and the land referred to in the judgments of the Reference Court are similar in situation and potentiality. Consequently, these judgments cannot be pressed into service to award the same compensation to the appellants. True, some elements of speculation is inevitable in all valuations and in the best of exercise some measure of conjecture and guess work is inherent in the very nature of the exercise. But the market value of the land acquired under the Act cannot be determined on mere conjecture or surmises. Needless to emphasis that the function of the Court in awarding compensation under the Act is to ascertain the market value of the land at the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. The best evidence to prove what a willing purchaser would pay for the land under acquisition would be the evidence of sales of comparable properties, proximate in time to the date of acquisition, similarly situate, and possessing the same or similar advantages.

15. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgments of the learned Single Judge do not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference. Consequently, the appeals are dismissed.