Delhi Housing Company vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr.
2004 Latest Caselaw 348 Del

JUDGMENT

R.C. Jain, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of Additional District Judge dated 27.5.1997. The land of the appellant measuring 2 bighas & 7 biswas, comprising in Khasra No. 191 min situated in the revenue State of village Gharaunda Neemka Bangar was acquired by the Government vide notifications dated 7.3.1988 issued tinder Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred to as the "Act"), though surprisingly the possession of the land was taken by the Government several years before the acquisition on 1.10.1976. The Land Acquisition Collector relying upon an earlier award No. 25/87-88 in respect of the land of the same village which was acquired vide a notification dated 5.8.1985 assessed the market value of the appellant's land @ Rs. 19,500/- per bigha. On reference, the learned Additional District Judge enhanced the compensation marginally by Rs. 150/- per bigha and awarded compensation @ of Rs. 19650/- per bigha. Dissatisfied with the said assessments, the appellant has filed the present appeal claiming enhancement of compensation @ Rs. 1,69,000/- per bigha along with other statutory benefits.

2. We have heard Mr. C.L. Verma, learned Counsel representing the appellant, Mr. Sanjay Poddar, learned Counsel representing the Government/Land Acquisition Collector and Mr. Gaurav Sareen, learned Counsel representing the respondent/DDA and have given our thoughtful consideration to their respective submissions.

3. As noticed above, this case is somewhat unusual as the normal sequence of proceedings in the matter of Acquisition of Land for public purposes has not been followed in the case in hand as the possession of the land which is normally be taken by the Government after the notifications under Section 4 and 6 or in case of urgent requirement under Section 17 of the Act, has in fact been taken by the Government about 12 years prior to the initiation of proceedings for the Acquisition of the land in question. When we asked the learned Counsel representing the respondents under what provision of law the possession of the land of the appellant was taken several years before acquisition of the land in question, Mr. Guarav Sareen, learned Counsel for the DDA stated that the possession of the land was taken by the DDA during the period of emergency for the purpose of developing a green belt and a lake named as Sanjay lake. Despite this admitted position but in view of the provisions of the Act and the Supreme Court decision in the case of CW No. 5575/97 tilted as R.L. Jain (D) by LRs. v. DDA and Ors., it will not be within our purview to grant any compensation or succor by way of damages to the appellant for the unauthorised occupation of the appellant's land by the Government for a period of about 12 years which relief may perhaps be available to the appellant in some other proceedings and forum. In this view of the matter, therefore, essentially the claim of the appellant in the present appeal has to be considered only with reference to the market value of the appellant's land on 7.3.1988, the date on which the land of the appellant was acquired by issuing notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act.

4. What was the market value of the land of the appellant on the date of its acquisition is the question, answer to which is somewhat difficult in this case because the parties have not cared to produce the cogent and relevant evidence about the market value of the land in question and rather, if we may say so, produced irrelevant material and evidence of some other village namely Mandawali Fazalpur and Patpar Ganj and that too in respect of certain chunks of land which were acquired by the Government several decades before the land of the appellants was acquired. After acquisition the land was developed by the DDA and developed plots carved out were leased out to various Group Housing Societies for the construction of group housing tenements. Through lease deeds Exs. A-1 to A-4 executed by the DDA in favor of various societies between March 1987 to October 1988 which brought out the lease amount between Rs. 90,000/- per bigha and Rs. 2,75,000/- per bigha. Learned Additional District Judge has discarded these lease deeds for cogent reasons firstly that these lease deeds pertain to a different village namely Mandawali Fazalpur popularly known as Patpar Ganj while the acquired land of the appellant pertains to village Gharaunda Neemka Bangar and secondly, they related to developed plots of land for commercial and industrial use and the land of the appellant could not be equated to the developed plots. Mr. C.L. Verma, Advocate, has tried to explain that the village Gharaunda Neemka Bangar also came to be known as Patpar Ganj and, therefore, the learned Additional District Judge was not right in holding that the land of the developed plots covered by lease deed Exs. A-1 to A-4 was of village Mandawali Fazalpur. We have seen the revenue map as well as the map of the developed area and we are not prepared to accept this explanation that the lease deeds produced on record by the appellant were in respect of the land of the same village that is called Gharaunda Neemka Bangar. On the face of this position, the learned Reference Court was right in not relying and acting upon the lease deeds Exs. A-1 to A-4.

5. Mr. C.L. Verma, Advocate, has then urged that the potentiality of the land of the appellant was the same as that of the land of village Mandawali Fazalpur which was developed by the DDA as his land could also be developed in the same way and it is a different matter that the respondents have chosen to develop it into a lake or a green area. We are not prepared to accept this because admittedly the land of the appellant was not an agricultural land inasmuch as no crops were being grown on the said land at the time of its acquisition. Rather it is recorded that Safeda trees are grown on the land. It is a common knowledge that ordinarily Safeda trees are planted and grown on a low lying land which remain inundated by water during most part of the year. Therefore, we hold that the land of the appellant was not having the same potential as the land of village Mandawali Fazalpur which later came to be developed into commercial and industrial plots.

6. The question of compensation for the acquired land has to be decided in relation to the land of the same village which was sold during the proximity of the period when the land of the appellant was acquired. Admittedly no sale deed of the year 1988 in respect of any land of the village Gharaunda Neemka Bangar which has been sold in March 1988 was produced or was available and, therefore, the Land Acquisition Collector had to base his assessment on the Award No. 25/87-88 which was in respect of the land acquired vide notification dated 5.8.1985 and where the compensation was granted @ Rs. 15,000/- per bigha and by giving escalation for two and a half years, the Land Acquisition Collector fixed the value @ Rs. 19,500. We are not aware on what basis the award No. 25/87-88 was made.

7. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the present case can be decided on the basis of judgment of this Court delivered by the Bench of Chief Justice and A.K. Sikri, J. in RFA No. 600/1999 titled as Hari Shankar Guar v. UOI and Ors. Wherein this Court has awarded compensation of Rs. 8064/- per bigha in respect of the land situated in village Gharaunda Neemka Bangar which was acquired vide notification dated 13th November, 1959. Mr. Sanjay Poddar and Mr. Gaurav Sareen fairly conceded that in the absence of any cogent evidence and material placed on record about the exact market value of the land in question during the relevant period of March 1988, this judgment can form the sound bases for determination of compensation in the present case by giving appropriate escalation in accordance with the settled principal of group of escalation. If the value of the land of village Gharaunda Neemka Bangar was Rs. 8064/- in the year 1959 and then following the principal of grant of escalation @ 12% p.a. for the period of 29 years i.e. from 1959 to 1988, the value of the land of the appellant would come to Rs. 36062.72 per bigha. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the opinion that fixing the market value of the appellant's land @ Rs. 36,100/- per bigha would adequately meet the ends of justice.

8. Now, the next question is as to what other statutory benefits the appellant would be entitled on the said enhanced compensation. In the impugned order the learned Additional District Judge has awarded interest @ 9% p.a. for the year from 30.10.1976 to 1.10.1977 and @ 15% p.a. from 1.10.1977 to the date of payment under the provision of Section 28 of the Act besides awarding additional amount under Section 23(1A) of the Act (r) 12% p.a. from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act till the date of the award of the dispossession. Mr. C.L. Verma, learned Counsel for the appellant has fairly conceded that in view of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of R.L. Jain (deceased) by LRs. v. DDA (supra) the appellants are not entitled to any interest for any period prior to the notification under Section 4 and 6 of the Act under the provisions of Section 28 of the Act and, therefore, the order of the learned Additional District Judge needs to be suitably modified accordingly.

9. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and the appellants are held entitled to compensation @ Rs. 36,100/- per bigha for their acquired land. The appellant shall also be entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. for the first year from 7.3.1988 and thereafter @ 15% p.a. till the data of payment. Besides the appellant shall also be entitled to additional amount under Section 23(1A) as the award in the case was admittedly made after 30.4.1982. Then appellant shall also be entitled to proportionate costs.