Delhi Development Authority vs Land Acqusition Collector And ...
2006 Latest Caselaw 696 Del

JUDGMENT

T.S. Thakur, J.

CM Nos.1628-1633/2005

1. Heard. The prayer for substitution of the legal heirs of the deceased respondents No.6, 13 & 18 is not seriously opposed by the proposed legal heirs of the said respondents. Even otherwise, we see no reason to decline the prayer for substitution or condensation of delay in the making of the applications, which are supported by affidavits.

2. We, accordingly, allow CM Nos.1628/05, 1630/05 & 1632/05 and condone the delay in the making of the applications for substitution of the legal heirs of the deceased respondents No.6, 13 & 18. We also allow CM Nos.1629/05, 1631/05 & 1633/05 and bring on record the proposed legal heirs in place of deceased respondents No.6, 13, & 18. The cause title shall be amended accordingly.

W.P.(C) No.3747/2004

1. In this petition, for a writ of certiorari, the petitioner-Delhi Development Authority has assailed the validity of an award dated 6th June, 2003 published by the respondent-Collector Land Acquisition in regard to a parcel of land measuring two bigha and three biswas in Khasra No.722/642, Mangolpur Khurd, Delhi. The facts giving rise to the petition may be summarised as under:

2. At the instance of the respondent-Delhi Development Authority, the aforementioned parcel of land was notified for acquisition by the respondent-Collector under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The possession of the land was in consequence of the said proceedings taken over by the petitioner authority on 16th April, 1998.

3. In the course of the award proceedings no intimation or notice appears to have been issued to the petitioner-authority although it was entitled to the same in its capacity as the beneficiary of the acquisition. The award made by the Collector was on that ground challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(C). No.3140/2000, before this Court, which petition was allowed and the matter remanded back to the Collector for re-determination of the compensation. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Agra Development Authority v. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Ors., (2001) 2 SCC 646, this Court held that the requirement of Section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act had not been complied with in as much as no notice had been issued to the beneficiary of the acquisition before determining the amount of compensation held payable to the expropriated land owners. The operative portion of the order passed by the Court reads as under:

5. The writ petition is allowed. We remit back the award No.11/99-2000 to the Collector, Land Acquisition (North-West) for fixing the compensation payable after notice to the DDA to appear and adduce evidence before him. We also clarify that if any other party desires of adducing further evidence, he will also be entitled to do so. After considering the material which is placed before him, the Collector shall fix the compensation and redeclare or amend his award appropriately within a period of six months from today. These directions we are issuing are in consonance with similar directions in Agra Development Authority case (supra).

6. As DDA as well as the claimants are before us (claimants in CWP No.6813/2000 represented by Mr. D.V. Khatri, Advocate), they will be deemed to be duly served with the notices and are directed to appear before the Collector on 7th January, 2003 at 11 AM. The Collector thereafter will proceed as aforementioned.

7. The amount which has already been deposited by the DDA and withdrawn by the claimants, will be duly adjusted at the time of making of the award.

8. On redetermining the amount of compensation by the Collector. The DDA will deposit the amount if required by the award, within two months from the date of the award which will be paid to persons interested in accordance with law.

9. The writ petitions and CMs stand disposed of. Rule is made absolute.

4. Pursuant to the above order, the Collector has once again determined the amount of compensation payable to the owners, aggrieved whereof the petitioner-authority has filed the present writ petition as already noticed earlier.

5. We have heard, learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. After remand of the matter to him, the Collector had allowed the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective versions. The petitioner-Delhi Development Authority had, in support of its case, relied upon an award fixing the market value of land in Mangolpur Khurd at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per bigha as on 4th March, 1963. It had suggested an escalation of 12% on the said value to take the amount of compensation to Rs. 31,000/- per bigha as on 27th August, 1997, i.e., the date of preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Act, issued in the present case. It had also relied upon a sale deed dated 25th October, 1996 for a parcel of land measuring 225 sq. yds. in the adjoining village of Mangolpur Kalan and contended that market value of the land, in the instant case, could by reference to the said transaction, be determined at Rs. 113 per sq. yds. after deducting 1/3rd of the sale price on account of the area under acquisition being larger than the area covered by the comparable sale transaction. Reliance was also placed by the petitioner upon an order issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi dated 3rd May, 1990 fixing the price of agricultural land in Union Territory of Delhi at Rs. 4.65 lacs per acre with effect from 27th April, 1990.

7. The land owners had, on the other hand, argued that the plot of land under acquisition was situate within a developed colony known as "Rohini Sector-II, Pocket-A, Phase-I". The plot of land had been used for raising construction and enjoyed all civic amenities on account of its location within the developed colony. It was also argued that the plot of land was surrounded by a puce metaled road and that the DDA had sold similar plots in the same area at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per sq. yds. before the year 1997. A copy of one such lease deed executed by the DDA was also produced. It was further argued that the land in question was situate near Rohtak Road and as per the land rates of L&DO, the rates of residential plots were in the range of Rs. 9,240/- per sq. mtr and that of commercial plots in the range of Rs. 19,310/- per sq. mtr. It was submitted that land in question was not an agricultural piece of land as such the question of applying rates fixed for agricultural land did not arise. The owners also offered to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,710/- per sq. mtr. in case the DDA released their plot of land from acquisition. They were ready to purchase the plot similarly situate in the same area at the rate of Rs. 8,000/- per sq. mtr. The market value of the plot in question according to the claimants was not less than Rs. 20,000/- per sq. mtr.

8. Considering the respective versions and the material available before him, the Collector came to the conclusion that the true market value of the land in question was Rs. 3,180/- per sq. mtr. The Collector's reasoning is found in the following paragraph of the award:

The village Mangolpur Khurd has already been declared urbanized in 1982 vide notification issued by MCD under Section 507 and afterwards has been developed in the Rohini Residential Scheme-I, by DDA. Therefore the rates of agriculture land fixed by the Government of Delhi and as claimed by DDA cannot be applicable to this land/plot. The claimants in the year 1999 have claimed @ Rs. 7,000.00 per Sq yds but failed to give any evidence in support of their claim. Recently, at one stage they are seeking their claim @ Rs. 20,000.00 to Rs. 25,000.00 per Sq mts and also submitting that they are ready to purchase the same land @ Rs. 8,000.00 per Sq mtr which is contrary to their own statement. The rates charged by DD @ Rs. 25,000.00 is for the developed plots. Whereas the land/plot under acquisition is not developed one. Hence their claim of Rs. 25,000.00 per Sq. Yds cannot be acceded to.

Keeping in view the above facts and urbanization of village, the schedule of market rates for land transfers in Delhi issued by Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment. Govt. of India for 1st April, 1996 till 31.3.1998 is being referred for redetermining the market value of the land under acquisition and not that of agriculture land. In the said list, Rohini or Pitampura does not figure. However, the nearest locality which is given in the schedule of market rate is Azadpur for which the prevailing rates during the corresponding period were Rs. 5,300.00 per Sq mtr for residential area. Since there is no other evidence for fixing the market value of the land. I, therefore, consider the rate to be genuine indicator to assess the market value of the land/plot. However, this chunk of land/plot is yet to be developed by the requisitioning department as such I find it appropriate to deduct this amount by 40% as development charges.

Therefore, I assess the market value of this land/plot @ Rs. 3,180.00 (Rupees Three Thousand One Hundred Eighty only) Per Sq meter.

9. There is, in our opinion, no error of law or jurisdiction in the view taken by the Collector to warrant interference in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this court. The Collector has taken a considered view after appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and the material produced before him. The Collector has clearly recorded a finding that Mangolpur Khurd has already been developed as an urbanized village as far back as in the year 1982 by the MCD. The village has ever since been developed into what is known as "Rohini Residential Scheme-I". The land under acquisition could not, therefore, be treated as agricultural land nor the rates fixed by the Government for such land made applicable to it. The Collector also noticed that Delhi Development Authority was itself charging Rs. 25,000/- per sq. mtr. for developed plots. He was also of the view that the nearest locality in regard to which the Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment had stipulated the schedule of market rates in the year 1996 was Azadpur. The prevalent rate for the corresponding period in that colony was Rs. 5,300.00 per Sq. mtr for residential areas. In the absence of any better evidence indicating the true market value of the land in question the Collector relied upon the said rates and after deducting 40% towards development charges arrived at a rate of Rs. 3180/- per sq. mtr. payable towards compensation to the owners. There is, in our view, no perversity in that finding. What was the true market value of the land on a given date is essentially a question of fact to be determined by reference to comparable land transactions and other circumstances like rates, if notified by the Government or compensation paid for land acquired in the area. While the award made by the Collector may be subject to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, in the absence of a perversity or irrationality of any kind the writ Court would not assume the role of an appellate Court or re-appraise evidence to substitute its own finding for that of the Collector. It is also noteworthy that the land owners are not satisfied with the amount of compensation and have got a reference made to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, where the same appears to be pending adjudication. The said Court will indeed examine the issue over again and may even enhance the compensation payable to the owners if it comes to the conclusion that the amount awarded does not represent the true market value of the land. We need not speculate about the outcome of the said proceedings at this stage. All that we need say is that we do not see any justification for interfering with the award made by the Collector or directing a reduction in the amount of compensation determined by him. This writ petition accordingly fails and is hereby dismissed but in the circumstances without any orders as to costs.