Madan Lal Mittal vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr.
2005 Latest Caselaw 720 Del

JUDGMENT

B.C. Patel, C.J.

1. The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 29.07.2004 of learned Additional District Judge fixing the value of land situated in Village Ladha Sarai in pursuance to proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the said Act' ). A notification under Section 4 of the said Act was issued on 23.01.1965 and the declaration under Section 6 of the said Act was made on 07.12.1966. These notifications resulted in Award No. 67/83-84 pronounced on 27.10.1983 whereby the market value of the acquired land was fixed at Rs. 3,300/- per bigha.

2. The appellant being dissatisfied with the said fixation of the market value preferred a reference under Section 18 of the said Act before learned Additional District Judge. In terms of the impugned judgment, the land value has been fixed at Rs. 20,000/- per bigha.

3. It is not in dispute that in Dula Ram v. Union of India, 99 (2002) DLT 564 (DB), the value of land situated in Village Ladha Sarai for different years was fixed including in respect of the very notification under Section 4 of the said Act as in the present case. The land value was fixed at Rs. 20,000/- per bigha. It is this judgment, which has been taken note of in the impugned judgment.

4. In view of the aforesaid position, the controversy is limited in the present case arising from the claim of the appellant that in view of the peculiar position of his land, the appellant is entitled to the land price fixed in respect of Village Masoodpur and not Ladha Sarai. It is only this aspect which has, thus, to be examined in the present appeal.

5. One of the contentions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant before the Reference Court was that the Gazette notification dated 13.06.1963 whereby the Village Ladha Sarai ceased to be a rural area and acquired the status of urbanised village was not taken note of in Dula Ram's case (supra). It was, thus, claimed that the value to be fixed should be at least Rs. 1,000/- per bigha higher and over and above the rate fixed in Dula Ram's case (supra). This contention was rightly negated by the Reference Court by referring to the judgment in Dula Ram's case (supra) since the High Court had taken note of the fact of urbanisation of the village and for this reason only the applicability of The Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 to the acquired land of Village Ladha Sarai was neither discussed nor taken note of. Not only this, reliance had been placed on the judgment in Nand Kishore v. Union of India, 73 (1998) DLT 108, which had discussed the issue of urbanisation of Village Mehrauli in the year 1963. In para 8 of the judgment in Nand Kishore's case (supra), this aspect has been considered including the potentiality of the entire Village of Mehrauli being used as a building site. A conclusion was, thus, reached in para 11 of the said judgment that there was good potentiality of the value of land as a building site and that the urbanisation had started in the area during the relevant period.

6. The reliance placed on the land value fixed in respect of Village Masoodpur was based on the Aks Shajra of Village Masoodpur, which is adjoining to the Village Ladha Sarai. This aspect has been discussed in para 16 of the impugned judgment where the Reference Court has held that once the value of land of a particular village has been fixed, it is better to place reliance on the said value rather than the value fixed of adjoining village. Some of the observations made in para 16 of the impugned judgment seem to be sweeping in nature, but the fact remains that in case of large-scale acquisition of land where the land value is fixed for a particular village, the burden lies on a party claiming a higher land value to show how that particular land has a much better potentiality than the land of the remaining village. The mere proximity to the adjacent village, though forming part of the other village, cannot ipso facto mean that the claimant is entitled to the value of land fixed for the adjoining village. The claimant also sought to establish certain peculiarities of the land in question by making submissions before the Reference Court. These were, however, rejected on appreciation of evidence as it was found that there is nothing to show that the land in question was abutting the main road. Thus, in the absence of any conclusive evidence in this behalf, the Reference Court, in our opinion rightly so, found that no reliance could be placed on those aspects to enhance the market value of the land.

7. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered view that the Reference Court has rightly fixed the land value at Rs. 20,000/- per bigha by relying on the judgment in Dula Ram's case (supra) fixing the land value in respect of the same village as the land of the appellant.

8. The appeal is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

9. In the end, we may note that the appeal was listed for hearing on 21.04.2005 when the matter was adjourned to 28.04.2005 in the presence of learned counsel for the appellant. On 28.04.2005, none chose to remain present on behalf of the appellant, but in the interest of justice, the matter was adjourned for today. Today also, none has chosen to remain present for the appellant and, thus, the matter has been decided on the basis of the pleading, evidence on record and submissions of learned counsel for the respondents based on judgment of this Court in Dula Ram's case (supra) dealing with the fixation of land value in respect of the same village and the same notification.