Shri Fateh Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi)
2004 Latest Caselaw 315 Del

JUDGMENT

R.C. Jain, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.3.1979 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, in LAC No. 157/1978, thereby answering a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and dismissing the claim of the petitioner for enhancement of compensation in respect of his acquired land.

2. Land of the appellant situated in the revenue State of village Khampur, Delhi, was acquired under a Notification dated 12.4.1972 issued under Section 4 of the Act for a public purpose namely for the construction of embankment to drain No.6. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award No. 15/73-74 assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.1,000/- per bigha by holding that the land is gair ab-pash (non-irrigated). Before the Reference Court, the petitioner claimed compensation @ Rs.5,000/- per bigha. Besides he also claimed Rs. 7,000/- for loss of alleged crops growing on the land, Rs.20,000/- towards loss of permanent earning and Rs.3,000/-as severance charges. The Reference Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to receive enhanced compensation regarding land in dispute on the pleas as alleged in the petition?

2. What was the market value of the land in dispute at the time of the notification u/s 4 of the Act?

3. Relief.

3. In support of his claim for compensation, the petitioner mainly relied upon two earlier judgments passed by Coordinate Reference Court in LAC 1969 titled as Rameshwar Das & Ors. Vs. Union of India decided on 31.3.1976 and in LAC No. 29/1969 titled as Zile Singh Vs. Union of India & Anr. In the former case, the Court dealt with the question of compensation in regard to the acquired land of Village Bakoli which was acquired pursuant to a Notification dated 2.2.1968. In that case the Land Acquisition Collector had assessed the compensation @ 800/- per bigha and the Reference Court assessed the market value of the land @ Rs.3,000/- per bigha relying upon a judgment in LAC No. 29/69 which pertain to village Alipur on the premises that the distance between the acquired land of village Bakoli and that of Village Alipur was only 3 and a half killas. Reliance was also placed on Exhibit A/7, copy of the judgment in LAC No. 16/69 titled as Indraj & Ors Vs. Union of India relating to the land of village Bakoli where market value of the land was assessed @ Rs. 4,000/- per bigha keeping in view the special circumstance that the land in question was very near to the G.T. Road i.e. only at a distance of 3-4 Killas from the G. T. Road. It was the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the land of village Khampur was situated quite near to the lands of village Bakoli and Alipur and was acquired for the same purpose i.e. for construction of embankment to drain No.6 and as such the said judgments of the Coordinate Court formed the good bases for assessing the market value of the land in question. This contention of the petitioner was rejected by the learned Reference Court on the premises that it could not be established by the petitioner that his land was situated near the lands of Alipur and Bakoli. The Reference Court then referred to two sale transactions of the land of the same village as was established through Ex. R-1 and R-2 showing that during the period February and April, 1970, the land of village Khampur was sold @ Rs.1,400/- per bigha. However, even this was not relied and acted upon by the Reference Court on the ground that it was the duty of the petitioner to show that these transactions relied upon by the Collector did not reflect the market value of the acquired land or that the transactions were not genuine transactions. The Court accordingly approved the market value of the land as assessed by the Land Acquisition Controller.

4. Mr. S. C. Dhamija, learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned order and sought enhancement to at least Rs.5,000/- per bigha ( i.e. at the rate claimed before the Land Acquisition Collector and Reference Court), though according to him the appellant is entitled to a much higher compensation. We may at once notice that this claim for enhanced compensation is not based on the submission that the land of the appellant was equated with the acquired land of villages Bakoli and Alipur, parity with which was sought before the Reference Court, but on altogether different premises viz. on the parity of yet third village namely Tikri Khurd. The basis for seeking parity in compensation with the land of village Tikri Khurd is stated to be the close proximity of village Khampur to village Tikri Khurd rather than to village Bakoli and Alipur. Learned counsel for the appellant had frankly admitted that the compensation at par is sought with the land of village Tikri Khurd because certain judgments came to be passed by this Court subsequent to the impugned order enhancing the value of the land pertaining to the land Tikri Khurd. One such judgment put forth is RFA 230/70 tilted as Des Raj (deceased) through his LRs. Vs. Union of India decided by this Court on 9th April 1980. In that case the Court had based its finding on another decision in LAC No. 7/1960 in the case of Shiv Narain Vs. Union of India decided on 5th May, 1961, wherein it was held that village Tikri Khurd is in the neighborhood of Khampur village and the quality of land acquired in village Tikri Khurd was in no way superior to the quality of the land acquired in village Khampur. On this premises it was held that the value of the land in village Tikri Khurd put a guide to the value of the land in village Khamur and compensation was accordingly determined. In order to show that the value of land in Tikri Khurd was assessed much higher i.e. at Rs. 16,750/- per bigha in respect of the land of village Tikri Khurd acquired vide Notification dated 30.10.1963, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Nafe Singh (deceased) through LRs Etc. Vs. Union of India .

5. On the other hand Mr. Sanjay Poddar, learned counsel representing the Union of India has urged that this Court should not look that that the appellant is not entitled to seek parity in the matter of compensation in regard to the land of another village particularly when the cogent evidence about the market value of the land of the same village was available and the Land Acquisition Collector has assessed the compensation based on that evidence. We see force in this submission of the learned counsel for the Union of India because it is settled legal position that contemporaneous sale transactions of the adjoining land or land in the same village during the period when the land was acquired would constitute a firm and reasonable basis for assessing the market value of the acquired land. In cases where such evidence is not available because no transaction of sale had taken place during the relevant period, the authorities can look into the sale transactions of the land of an adjoining and contiguous village provided both the lands have similar potential. In the case in hand the Land Acquisition Collector had assessed the market value of the land in question on the basis of three transactions of the same village and, therefore, the learned Reference Court was justified in not looking into the market value of the land as assessed by the Court of Coordinate jurisdiction in respect of acquired land of villages Alipur and Bankoli from which the petitioner has sought great support before the Reference Court. Surprisingly in this Court, the appellant has given up his support for claiming parity with those villages and has ventured to claim parity with yet third village namely Tikri Khurd, simply because on a later point of time a judgment passed by this Court assessing much higher value of the land in respect of village Tikri Khurd came handy to the appellant. Is such a reliance and support permissible in law? In our opinion, the answer is plainly in negative. This is because the appellant did not claim parity with the land of Tikri Khurd before the Reference Court, and therefore, he can not be allowed to set up an altogether new stand in the present appeal merely because it is more advantageous for him to claim parity with the land of Tikri Khurd. Allowing frequent shift in stand at different stages of the same legal proceedings before different forums in the same matter may lead to anamolous situation. On one hand such shift in the stand will take up the Court by surprise, the stand being beyond the pleadings and material placed on recored before the Reference Court and on the other hand such a course would not allow any judgment to attain finality. Merely because a certain subsequent judgment of this Court pertaining to a different village assessing a much higher compensation for the acquired land has come handy to the appellant. In our opinion cannot be a ground in the matter of compensation based on such a judgment. We are, therefore, not hesitant in holding that the reference of the appellant on the decision of this Court in regard to the acquired land of village Tikri Khurd is wholly misplaced and cannot form the basis for claiming enhanced compensation in the present case. More particularly in view of the factual position that the some transactions in respect of the same village are available and form the basis for assessing the market value of the land in questions.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has then urged that the land of the appellant was acquired along with the land of villages Alipur and Bakoli vide the same Notification and for the same purpose of construction for embankment to drain No.6 and the villages Alipur and Bakoli being adjoining to village Khampur, the appellant is entitled to compensation at the same rate. In support of his contention he has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in CW No. 7459/99 titled as of Union of India Vs. Bal Ram and Anr. decided on 20th January, 2004 by which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has affirmed the judgment of this Court granting same compensation for the lands of different villages which had been acquired for the same purpose. In our view on the face of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in hand which we have noticed above, the appellants cannot seek any assistance from these judgments as here the evidence was produced about the actual market value of the acquired land and, therefore, reference to other or adjoining villages would become irrelevant.

7. Now, what should be the value of the appellant's land is the question which remains to be answered. It is pertinent to note that though the learned Additional District Judge has found that as per the entries in the mutation record Ex.R-I and R-2, the market value of the land was Rs. 1400/- per bigha during 1970, still for reason which is not easy to understand, the learned Additional District Judge has not even increased the value to Rs. 1400/- per bigha what to talk of a further increase for two years because the land in question was acquired in 1972 and instead preferred to confirm the assessment of the Land Acquisition Collector at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per bigha. In our opinion, the learned Additional Session Judge has erred in not enhancing the compensation based on the sale transactions which were relied upon by the respondent/UOI.

8. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, learned counsel representing the Union of India has brought to our notice a judgment of this Court dated 18.3.2004 in RFA No. 281/1980 in the case of Dalip Singh Vs. Union of India wherein in respect of the land of the same village acquired by means of the same Notification, this Court has approved the market value of the land of village Khampur @ Rs.2,500/- per bigha as assessed by the Reference Court in LAC No. 64/1979. We deem it appropriate to assess the market value of the appellant's land at the same rate of Rs.2,500/- per bigha with all other statutory benefits.

9. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. The value of the appellant's land is assessed @ Rs.2,500/- per bigha. Besides that the appellants will also be entitled to solarium @ 30% and interest @ 9% for one year from the date of award or taking over possession of the land whichever is earlier and thereafter the interest @ 15% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation would be paid to the appellants till the date of payment. The appellant would be entitled to proportionate costs.