Rama Nand (Since Deceased) ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr.
2002 Latest Caselaw 935 Del

JUDGMENT

Devinder Gupta, J.

1. These appeals have been filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") by the claimants as well as by the Union of India, arising out of various awards of the reference court answering references under Section 18 of the Act for their land situate in villages Bharthal and Bindapur, Delhi. The land was acquired for Planned Development of Delhi through notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 27.1.1984. It was followed by declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 18.9.1984. The Collector made his award No. 19/86-87 on 5.9.1986

2. The Collector in his award No. 18/86-87 offered compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 13,000/- per bigha. The claimants feeling dissatisfied sought references for determination of the amount of compensation and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/- per bigha. The reference court answered the references and held Rs. 33,000/- per bigha to be the fair market value. Still feeling dis-satisfied the claimants have preferred the appeals for further enhancement in the amount of compensation. Appeals have also been preferred by the State seeking reduction in the amount of compensation since in some of the case the reference court had allowed compensation at the rate of Rs. 36,400/- per bigha.

3. Under the same notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 27.1.1984 land was also acquired for the same public purpose situate in village Bindapur, Delhi for which Collector Land Acquisition made his award No. 163/86-87. Claimants were offered compensation at the rate of 11,600/- per bigha and Rs. 8,000/- per bigha for category A and B lands. Feeling dis-satisfied the claimants sought references. The reference court answered the references by the impugned awards holding the claimants entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 36,400/- per bigha. Still feeling dis-satisfied the claimants have preferred appeals for further enhancement in the amount of compensation.

4. Counsel for the parties have been heard and we have also gone through the record.

5. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that if not more of the claimants deserve to be allowed compensation at the same rates at which it has already been determined by this Court by various decisions with respect to nine other revenue estates where the land was acquired under the same notification for same public purpose, more especially in view of the findings on record that the lands were similarly situate were being used for similar purpose and were having same and similar potentiality. Moreover, the claimants cannot be discriminated against in the matter of compensation when their lands were acquired by the State under the same notification for same public purpose. Denying compensation at equal rate will amount to discrimination without any rational basis.

6. Learned counsel for the Union of India placing reliance upon decision of Supreme Court in Kanwar Singh and Ors. v. Union of India urged that the mere fact that compensation had been determined by this Court for the adjoining nine revenue estates where land was acquired under the same notification for the same public purpose alone cannot be a ground to allow compensation at the same rate to the claimants. It was urged that compensation has to be determined independently on the basis of the material on record and uninfluenced by the rates determined for the lands situate in the other revenue estates through adjoining and acquired under the same notification.

7. Before we proceed to discuss the material available on record or which was brought to our notice during course of arguments, in order to appreciate the submissions made, it will be but appropriate to first refer to the location of the revenue estate of Bharthal.

8. The reference court has noticed the location of the revenue estate Bharthal saying that its boundaries on the Eastern side were touching revenue estate Shahbad Mohammedpur and towards Northern side are located villages Shahpur and Bagrola. Revenue estate of Pochanpur was located on the Eastern side and village Amberhai towards Southern side with village Bijwasan. It has also been observed by the reference court that the location of the land has not been disputed by either side. Reference court also noticed the fact that in so far as the revenue estates Matiala, Palam, Bagrola, Amberhai, Toganpur, Sahupur, Shahbad Mohammedpur and Lohar-Heir, which were adjacent to each other there has already been determination of the market value by this Court in various decisions. As regards the market value as on 27.1.1984, the Collector Land Acquisition in his and noticed that the land under acquisition situate in village Bharthal was cultivable. He did not separately categorised the land but included the entire land in one category, which was being used for agricultural purposes. He also observed in his award that the acquired land was adjacent to the boundary of village Shahbad Mohammedpur and was forming a triangle touching mostly Shahbad Mohd.Pur. In order to offer compensation to the claimants, he placed reliance upon the market value as had been assessed by him for village Shahbad Mohammedpur in his award No. 10/86-87 and accordingly proceeded to offer compensation at the rate of Rs. 13,000/- per bigha. In allowing compensation the Collector also proceeded to record the fact that even on his inspection he found that there was no basic difference as regards the location, situation and potentiality of the land as compared to the lands of village Shahbad Mohammedpur. There was only one metalled road passing through village Shahbad Mohd. Pur and thereafter through village Bharthal. On these basis he allowed same market value.

9. The claimants before the Reference Court had placed reliance upon the sale instance, evidenced by copy of sale deed Ex.A1 dated 18.8.1986. This sale transaction is with respect to 2 bighas 2 bias was of land situate in village Bharthal, which was sold for a consideration of Rs. 3,70,000/- per bigha. In other words, sale deed reflected market value of Rs. 1,76,190/- per bigha. But the sale instance is of more than two years from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. In addition reliance was placed upon various awards of the Reference Courts for adjoining villages where compensation had already been determined i.e. revenue estates of Sahupur, Palam, Amberhai and Bagrola.

10. By the same notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 27.1.1984 land was acquired in 13 adjoining revenue estates for the same public purpose, which in the notification was said to be Planned Development of Delhi, but the precise purpose being setting up of the sub-city of Dwarka. These 13 revenue estates were located contiguous to each other in one compact block comprising Palam, Shahbad Mohammedpur, Amber-Hai, Toganpur, Matiala, Loharheri, Mirzapur, Bharthal, Sahupur, Bagrola, Pochanpur and Bindapur.

11. these Court in Rameshwar Solanki v. Union of India (1995) 57 DLT 410 determined the market value of land situate in village Palam acquired under the same notification dated 27.1.1984 at the rate of Rs. 47,224/- per bigha. Appeal was carried to Supreme Court and the decision of this Court was upheld by the Supreme Court in Satpal and Ors. v. Union of India 1997 (8) S.C.C.296.

12. after the market value had been determined with respect to the land situate in revenue estate Palam, another Division Bench of this Court relying upon the decision in Rameshwar Solanki's case (supra) proceeded to determine the market value of the land situate in the adjoining village Shahbad Moh. Pur in RFA No. 724/95 ( Balak Ram v. Union of India ) decided on 2.11.1998 at the rate of Rs. 47,224/- per bigha. Appeal was preferred by Union of India being S.L.P.(C) No. 2230/2000 ( Union of India v. Balak Ram, ), which is stated to have been dismissed.

13. Another Division Bench of this Court by placing reliance upon the determination of the amount of compensation in Rameshwar Solanki's and Balak Ram's cases (supra) proceeded to determine the market value of the land situate in village Amberhai acquired through the same notification dated 27.1.1984 for same public purpose and held Rs. 47,224/- per bigha to be the fair market value The decision is reported as Sita Ram v. Union of India 1999 (79) DLT 10.

14. In Chhajju v. Union of India 1999 (80) D.L.T.129 another Division Bench assessed Rs. 47,224/- per bigha to be the fair market value of land situate in village Matiala acquired through the same notification dated 27.1.1984.

15. Next determination was made by another Division Bench of this Court in RFA No. 280/92 ( Puran v. Union of India ) decided on 23.12.1999 with respect to the land situate in villages Toganpur, Sahupur and Loharheri. Relying upon the earlier decisions and having come to the conclusion that the lands, which were acquired under notification dated 27.1.1984 for the same public purpose were similarly situate having same and similar advantages and potentiality Rs. 47,224/- per bigha was held to be the fair market value further observing that partly in the amount compensation deserves to be maintained where the lands are acquired for the same public purpose under the same notification and when all other factors are similar.

16. On 21.3.2002 in RFA No. 164/2000 ( Om Parkash v. Union of India ) another Division Bench relying upon the earlier decisions held Rs. 47,224/- to be the fair market value for the land situate in village Mirza Pur acquied for same public purpose under the same notification.

17. For village Bharthal also the Reference Court answered the reference by placing reliance upon the decisions of this Court with respect to the adjoining villages and awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 47,224/- per bigha. In one of such case reliance was placed upon the decision of this court in RFA No. 724/95 ( Balak Ram v. Union of India ) holding that Rs. 47,224/- per bigha was the fair market value of the claimants land situate in village Bharthal acquired for the same public purpose under the same notification.

18. In another decision in RFA No. 25/2000 ( Khazan Singh v. Union of India ) decided on 8.11.2001 Division Bench of this Court determined the fair market value of land situate in village Pochanpur acquired through the same notification dated 27.1.1984 at Rs. 47,224/- per bigha.

19. As regards village Bindapur, reference court on appreciation of evidence on record and perusal of site plan held it to be surrounded by village Matiala on Western side, village Mirzapur on the Southern sides; village Nazirpur on the Eastern side and village Possangipur and Asalatpur on the Northern side. Considering the location of village Bindapur where land was acquired for same public purpose, reference court held that in so far as its location, potentiality and situation is concerned, it was akin to the lands situate in villages Mirzapur and Matiala, which were located towards the Southern and Western side of Bindapur. It is interesting to note that the Collector Land Acquisition while offering compensation to the claimants observed in his award that the land under acquisition in village Bindapur was surrounded by colonies like Uttam Nagar and Janakpur in the East and North as on the ate of notification under Section 4 of the Act and by the lands situate in villages Matiala and Palam on West. In view of this location and topography of the land under acquisition, the sale considerations referred to in various sale transactions of which he took notice, it was observed by him that the same reflect true market price of the land after he had visited the village and inspected the adjoining villages. He formed an opinion that the acquired land of village Bindapur was identical to the land of village Palam for which award No. 1/86-87 had already been made with respect to such land of village Palam which was acquired under same notification dated 27.1.1984.

20. On behalf of Union of India reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in RFA No. 69/89 wherein market value of the land situate in village Bharthal acquired for public purpose through notification issued on 6.11.1980 had been determined at Rs. 21,000/- per bigha. The reference court in some of the cases while discarding the claimants' evidence proceeded to place reliance upon this decision and for the time gap from 6.11.1980 to 27.1.1984 allowed appreciation at the rate of 15% p.a. and thereby held the fair market value of land situate in village Bharthal acquired through notification dated 27.1.1984 at Rs. 33,000/- per bigha. It was urged that market value ought to have been determined on the basis of the market value as assessed in RFA No. 69/89 by allowing reasonable appreciation.

21. In the aforementioned back ground when for nine revenue estates the market value has already been determined at the same rate, namely, Rs. 47,224/- per bigha, after holding that the lands were acquired under the same notification for same public purpose and were being utilised also for same purpose and the fact that there was no difference in the situation, potentiality, advantages available and all other factors, there is no reason why we should also not maintain parity. No doubt it is well settled that same rate of compensation cannot be awarded to the claimants of the adjoining villages merely on the ground that the land is adjacent to that village where compensation has already been determined for the land, which was acquired under the same notification for same public purpose. It is also equally true that generally there would be and there is bound to be difference in situation and potentiality of the land situate in two adjoining villages but when it is shown from the record that situation, location, potentiality and all other relevant factors are same and similar with hardly any difference in the advantages available, there is no reason that why compensation be not determined at the same rate. Not only the Collector Land Acquisition but even the Reference Courts have recorded a finding that the acquired land of village Bharthal is adjacent to the revenue estate of Shahbad Mohd. Pur and as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act there was no basic difference either in location, situation or potentiality of the villages, which were similarly situate having similar advantage available to it even as regards future prospects. In this view of the matter, there would be no other conclusion possible except that the market value of the land acquired through the same notification should be the same as determined for the adjoining village.

22. In Nand Ram v. State of Haryana JT 1988 (4) S.C. 260, the Supreme Court emphatically laid down the principle that the State cannot refuse and rather has an obligation to pay, in respect of the land acquired under the same notification and under the same award to the land owners whose similarly situated land had been acquired under the same notification and for the same public purpose. Not paying similar compensation when all other relevant factors are the same would amount to discrimination. Even the decision of Supreme Court in Kanwar Singh's case (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for Union of india upholds the principles of allowing compensation at the same rate when there is not difference in potentiality, situation and other relevant factors, more especially when the land is acquired for the same purpose under the same notification.

23. Consequently, the appeals filed by the claimants are allowed with proportionate costs and the appeals preferred by Union of India seeking reduction in the amount of compensation are dismissed. The claimants are held entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 47,224/- per bigha. In addition to the enhanced market value, the claimants will be paid solarium at the rate of 30% and interest at the rate of 9% p.a. for a period of one year from the date Collector taking possession and thereafter at the rate of 15% p.a. till date of payment. In addition to the market value, the claimants will also be paid additional amount calculated at the rate of 12% p.a. for the period commencing from the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act to the date of award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. In view of the decision of Supreme Court in Sunder v. Union of India 2001 (60) D.R.J. 627 (S.C.) interest will also be paid on solarium and the additional amount.