Delhi High Court
Smt. Poonam Gupta, Vijay Kumar ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 10 March, 2005
Author: B Patel
Bench: B Patel, S K Kaul
JUDGMENT
B.C. Patel, C.J.
1. This group of appeals is filed against the common Award made by the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the said Act') on 31.03.1995 being Award No. 3/95-96 for the land situated at Village Narela.
2. The notification under Sections 4 and 17 was issued on 19.03.1993, while declaration under Section 6 was made on 24.04.1993.
3. It appears that the claimants were satisfied with the instructions issued by the Land and Building Department, Delhi vide circular dated 03.05.1990 wherein it was determined that Rs.4.65 lacs per acre for agricultural lands should be considered as the minimum price and Rs.1.5 lacs per acre be considered for lands situated in the river bed between the forward bunds.
4. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'LAC') while determining the compensation found that a part of the land under acquisition was low lying area and not used for agricultural operations. This land was categorised as Category B land used for proposes of brick kiln industry. The land used for agricultural purposes was the land categorised as Category A.
5. In view of the aforesaid position, LAC awarded Rs.4.65 lacs per acre for agricultural lands being Category A land, but for the Category B land determined the land value at Rs.3 lacs per acre. The appellants not being satisfied with the said Award made an application under Section 18 of the said Act. The Reference Court, however, agreed with determination of the land value by LAC subject only to one modification that since the circular was of the year 1990 and the land was acquired in the year 1993, 1% increase per annum was granted over the price of 1990.
6. The appellants aggrieved by the said orders have filed the present appeals. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in so far as Category A land is concerned, the only plea is that the increase should have been @ 15% per annum instead of 12% per annum since the circular provided for a depreciation of 15% per annum prior to 1990. As far as Category B land is concerned, the contention advanced is that though some part of it was low lying area, the same does not warrant a reduction in the price to least to the level of 50% as was done by the Courts below and the depreciation cannot be more than about 10%. In this behalf, reference was made to various judgments considered by the Reference Court where depreciation of 9% or 10% had been made. This plea is sought to be substantiated on the ground that LAC has compared the land forming subject matter of acquisition with similar land situated in adjacent villages where brick kiln industry was being carried on.
7. On consideration of the submissions made by the appellants, we find that the appellants fail to produce any evidence before the Reference Court with regard to low lying area and its depth. Thus, no material has been produced indicating as to how the depreciation should be made by a reference to the value of land for agricultural purposes. The Reference Court has, in fact, relied upon judgment of the Supreme Court in Ludhiana Improvement Trust v. Brijeshwar Singh Chhal and Anr., . However, in the said case, there was no dispute that the depth of depression of the land was 3 to 6 ft.
8. It was for the appellants being the claimants to lead evidence and place adequate material before the Court to indicate what should be a reasonable depreciation. On the other hand, LAC has noted that it had inspected the site in question and that the acquiring Department will have to spend some extra amount on leveling the land. There is, however, no reference to the depth of depression and as to why the amount to be spent would be Rs.1.65 lakhs per acre. There is also no reference to the mode of calculation of this amount.
9. In the absence of any evidence being placed on record, it is not possible for this Court to arrive at a conclusion and in every matter the principle of thumb rule cannot be applied where no material has been placed on record.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants, faced with the aforesaid position, submits that an opportunity may be granted to the appellants to adduce evidence and place on record the relevant material by remanding the matter back to the Reference Court. Learned counsel, in fact, submits that he would not press other submissions in respect of the rate of increase in respect of Category A or Category B land and confines his prayer to determination of the question of the value of Category B land and the percentage of depreciation to be provided as comparable to Category A land.
11. In view of the given facts and circumstances of the case, more specifically the absence of any material placed by the appellant and there being lack of basis for determination of the depreciation by the LAC and the Reference Court, we consider the aforesaid a fair solution. The matter is, thus, remanded back to the Reference Court to predetermine the market value of the land falling in Category B on evidence being led by the appellants and respondents. The Trial Court shall consider the rate to be applied for depreciation of the land in comparison to the agricultural land or as to how the cost should be determined of this Category B land after considering the evidence to be produced by the parties. The appeal is, thus, allowed partly in the aforesaid terms and the order of the Reference Court is confirmed in so far as determination of the value of Category A land is concerned.
12. We make it further clear that in case of any enhancement, the enhancement part shall not carry any interest till the date of disposal of the reference in view of failure of the appellants to lead evidence at the relevant stage of time.
13. The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
14. Parties to appear before the Reference Court on 18.04.2005.
