Delhi High Court
Sh. Laxmi Narain Bansal Etc.Etc. vs Union Of India on 30 September, 2008
Author: A.K.Sikri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No. 677/1994
along with
RFA Nos. 748/1994, 42/1995, 49/1995, 101/1995, 102/1995
109/1995, 128/1995, 202/1995, 203/1995, 205/1995, 216/1995
219/1995, 220/1995, 221/1995, 222/1995, 226/1995, 241/1995
258/1995, 274/1995, 281/1995, 288/1995, 297/1995, 326/1995
328/1995, 329/1995, 334/1995, 335/1995, 346/1995, 347/1995
351/1995, 352/1995, 353/1995, 364/1995, 371/1995, 385/1995
389/1995, 460/1995, 565/1995, 574/1995, 585/1995, 635/1995
701/1995, 756/1995, 757/1995, 802/1995, 815/1995, 818/1995
825/1995, 870/1995, 1006/1995, 145/1996, 300/1998, 109/1999
137/1999, 147/1995, 315/1995, 188/1995, 315/1995, 515/1998
519/1998, 44/2000, 62/2000, 63/2000, 572/2002, 296/2003
LA.App. Nos. 134/2004, 23/2007, 28/2007, 88/2007, 104/2007
36/2004, 62/2004, 136/2004, 166/2004, 200/2004, 225/2004
RFA Nos. 543/2001, 551/2001, 556/2001, 129/2002, 131/2002
304/2002, 448/2002, 481/2002, 497/2002, 360/1988 & 554/1988
Date of Hearing:26.09.2008
Date of Decision: 30.09.2008
#Sh. Laxmi Narain Bansal etc.etc. .....Appellants
! Through: Mr.Roop Chand with
Mr. Sanjay Rana for the appellants in
RFA Nos. 101, 102, 109, 202, 205, 216
219, 297 & 329/1995.
Mr. Rajiv Dewan for the appellants in
RFA Nos. 258, 364, 385, 389, 565, 574
635, 701/1995 & 137/1999.
Mr. Deepak Khosla for the appellants in
RFA Nos. 677, 748/1994, 42, 49, 128 of
1995, 220, 221, 222, 226, 274, 281/95
145/1996 & 147/1995
Versus
$Union of India .....Respondents
Through Mr.Sanjay Poddar
CORAM :-
*THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
RFA No.677/94 and batch Page 1
1.Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to
see the Judgment?
2.To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
A.K. SIKRI, J.
:
1. In all these appeals filed by various appellants they are claiming
enhancement of the compensation, over and above what is awarded
by the learned ADJs in the reference petitions filed by them under
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Act'). The appellants were the land owners of different pockets of land
situate in Village Sahibabad Daulatpur, Delhi, which was acquired by
the respondents for public purpose. Notification under Section 4 of
the Act was issued on 23.6.1989; declaration under Section 6 of the Act
was issued on 8.9.1989 and the Collector (Land Acquisition) made his
Award No.5/91-92 on 6.9.1991.
2. In his award the LAC classified the land in two categories, namely,
block A and block B. Land, which was not used for agriculture/
horticulture was put in block A and the remaining land, which was not
cultivable or bhatta grounds etc. were put in block B. Market value of
land in block A was offered at Rs.84,620/- per bigha and for the
remaining land in block B offer was at Rs.30,000/- per bigha. Market
value for land falling in block A was fixed on the basis of guidelines laid
down in the letter of the Joint Secretary (L&B), Delhi Administration
dated 3.5.1990 fixing minimum price for agricultural land with effect
from 27.4.1990 at the rate of Rs.4,65,000/- per acre. For the land,
RFA No.677/94 and batch Page 2
which had been notified for being acquired earlier in point of time
from the cut off date, the guidelines provided discount to be made on
1990 price by 15% p.a. As the notification under Section 4 of the Act
had been issued 300 days prior to 27.4.1990, the market value was
fixed at Rs.84,620/- per bigha.
3. As mentioned above, these appellants sought references under Section
18 of the Act, which were dealt with by the learned ADJs and
culminated into the impugned awards. Reference Courts by the
impugned awards did away with the categorization of land as was
made by the Collector and held that the entire land deserves to be
treated equally and determined the market value at Rs.89,620/- per
bigha for all categories of land. Instead of making a discount of 15%
from the notified rates in letter dated 3.5.1990, the Reference Court,
for the land notified prior to 27.4.1990, made a discount @ 7.5 p.a.
4. Still feeling dissatisfied, the claimants have filed these appeals seeking
further enhancement in the amount of compensation and their claim is
that they be allowed compensation @ Rs.200/- per sq. yards or in
other words, Rs.2,00,000/- per bigha.
5. These appeals were earlier heard by a Division Bench of this Court and
decided vide judgment dated 7.2.2003. The Division Bench, inter alia,
noted that another notification was issued on 31.12.1981 to acquire
certain lands in Village Rithala. In respect of that acquisition as well,
the matter came to the High Court for assessing the market value for
the purpose of awarding compensation to the land owners in those
RFA No.677/94 and batch Page 3
cases. The Division Bench of this Court in a common judgment
delivered in the said appeals with leading case being RFA No.751/1994
entitled Jas Rath v. Union of India reported as 95 (2002) DLT 605 (DB)
had fixed the market value of the land @ Rs.73 per sq. ft. The Court
was of the opinion that since land in respect of Village Rithala acquired
in that case was in the same vicinity and proximate to each other, it
could be treated as par with that of Sahibabad Daultpur as regards its
location, advantages and disadvantages. Potential of the acquired land
was also same vis-à-vis land utilized for Rohini Residential Scheme
being the possible use of lands of both the villages. There were other
similarities as well. Therefore, the value of the land fixed in respect of
Village Rithala in Jas Rath's case (supra) was made the basis for
determination of the market value of the land situate in Village
Sahibabad Daulatpur, Delhi, in these appeals. In case of Village Rithala,
land was acquired through notification dated 31.12.1981, whereas in
the instant cases notification under Section 4 was issued on 23.6.1989.
Thus, there was a time lag of 7½ years. Though in Jas Rath's case
(supra) appreciation was allowed @ 12% per annum for the time gap in
two notifications, it was deemed proper to allow appreciation @ 10%
in the instant case. Making calculations in this manner the market
value of the land was fixed at Rs.126 per sq. yd., i.e. Rs.1,26,000/- per
bigha. Accordingly, the appellants herein were held entitled to
compensation @ Rs.1,26,000/- per bigha in addition to solatium @
30%, additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Act @ 12% per
RFA No.677/94 and batch Page 4
annum from the date of notification issued under Section 4(1) of the
Act to the date of Collector taking possession or making award by the
Collector, whichever is earlier. On the enhanced market value it was
directed that interest shall be paid @ 9% per annum for a period of one
year from the Collector taking possession and thereafter @ 15% per
annum till payment. Interest was also to be paid on solatium and
additional amount.
6. The Union of India preferred appeals against the judgment in the case
of Jas Rath (supra) in respect of market value determined for the lands
situate in Village Rithala. Special Leave Petitions were also preferred
against the judgment dated 7.2.2003 passed in these appeals. All these
appeals came up for hearing before the Supreme Court with leading
case Ranvir Singh and another v. Union of India. These appeals were
decided on 7.9.2005 and judgment is reported as 2005 (12) SCC 59.
We shall refer to the discussion contained in that judgment at a later
stage. Suffice it to mention that the judgment in the case of Jas Rath
(supra) as well as in these appeals were set aside by the Apex Court
primarily on the ground that for the purpose of determining the
market value, sale deeds produced were not taken into consideration.
It was pointed out that in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of
the Supreme Court in Cement Corporation of India v. Purva & others
2004 (8) SCC 270, the most relevant piece of evidence for determining
the market value as on the date of acquisition would be the sale deeds
and in particular pertaining to portions of the acquired land. As a
RFA No.677/94 and batch Page 5
result, both sets of appeals, namely, in the case of Jas Rath (supra) and
in these cases were remanded back by the Supreme Court for
reconsideration.
7. Since the appeals in the present case were earlier decided following
the judgment in the case of Jas Rath (supra), after remand the Division
Bench of this Court thought it proper to first deal with the appeals
relating to Village Rithala. Those appeals have already been heard and
are decided by this Court and the case is known as Jas Rath v. Union of
India , 130 (2006) DLT 700 (DB). The Division Bench has, after a
detailed discussion, fixed the market value of the land at Rs.27,000/-
per bigha, i.e. Rs.27 per sq.ydt. as against Rs.72/- per sq. yd. granted
earlier. The appellants, for obvious reasons, do not want that the
compensation given in the aforesaid judgment be made basis for
determining the market value in the present case as was done earlier.
They submit that the matter be decided on the basis of evidence which
was led before the reference court. They also pointed out that against
the aforesaid judgment in Jas Rath (supra) appeal are preferred by the
land owners which are pending consideration by the Apex Court.
8. On behalf of the appellants arguments were primarily addressed by
Mr.Roop Chand and Mr.Deepak Khosla. The contention of the
appellants is that few sale deeds relating to Village Sahibabad Daultpur
itself were produced before the learned ADJ. In addition, rates fixed by
the DDA itself in respect of other land in Rohini complex were
also produced before the learned ADJ. However, the learned
RFA No.677/94 and batch Page 6
ADJ, while fixing the compensation in the impugned judgment, ignored
the said material and instead based his findings on the notification of
the Delhi Administration dated 3.5.1990 whereby prices of the
acquired land were fixed at Rs.4,65,000/- per acre (Rs.96,875/- per
bigha) on or about 27.4.1990. Since this was approximately 308 days
after the notification which was issued on 23.6.1989 in the instant
cases, he discounted the aforesaid prices by 12.85% (with reference to
15% for 365 days) and arrive at the market value of Rs.84,620/- per
bigha as on 23.6.1989. Submission was that the said notification could
not be made the sole basis for fixing the market value of the acquired
land, ignoring other material and evidence produced by the appellants.
9. In so far as the evidence in the form of sale deeds etc., which was
produced by the appellant before the learned ADJ, the same was
highlighted in the following manner:-
a) Ex. P-1 is the sale deed dated 3.8.1989. It is in respect
of 500 sq. yards of land in the same village as per
which, the land is sold @ Rs.172 per sq. yards. It was
submitted that the sale deed is within two months of
the notification under Section 4 of the Act and
therefore, would be the best evidence to establish the
market value;
b) Ex. P-3 was the other sale deed dated 22.7.1983
produced by the appellants. As per this sale deed, in
RFA No.677/94 and batch Page 7
respect of the land in the same village, the sale
consideration was Rs.104/- per sq. ft. It was submitted
that since the notification acquiring the land was issued
six years after the aforesaid sale deed, if the rates are
increased @ 12% per year, compounded annually, the
market value as on the date of notification would be
Rs.176/- per sq.yd.
c) Another document produced by the appellant was Ex.P-
4, which was sale deed dated 9.6.1990 in respect of
land measuring 450 sq. yards of the same village which
was sold at Rs.70,000/.- The appellants, however,
chose not to rely upon the same. What was submitted
was that even if the principle of "golden mean" is
adopted while calculating the average price on the
basis of Exs. P-1, P-3 and P-4, the market value of the
land would be arrived at Rs.258/- per sq. yd.
d) Apart from the aforesaid sale deeds, the learned
counsel for the appellants referred to two more
documents. Ex.P-5 was the perpetual lease deed
executed by DDA on 2.4.1987 in respect of land under
Rohini Residential Scheme. This scheme was
developed after acquiring the land in Village Sahibabad
Daulatpur and other adjoining villages. As per this
perpetual lease deed, the land was sold at Rs.445/- per
RFA No.677/94 and batch Page 8
sq. ft. It was pointed out that this price was increased
to Rs.940/- in the year 1990 and was further increased
in the year 1992.
Other document was Ex.P-8, which is notification
issued by the DDA, fixing unearned increase for the re-
sale of the plots in Rohini Residential Scheme at
Rs.4,200/- per sq. meter.
10.It was also submitted that topography of the land in question was
described in the judgment pronounced by this Court on earlier
occasion, over which there is no dispute. The surrounding area was
taken for the development of Rohini Residential Scheme, which was
the purpose of acquisition of the land in question and, therefore,
future prospects of this land were also to be considered, as held by the
Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Tribeni Devi & Ors. v. The Collector,
Ranchi, AIR 1972 SC 1417, which was followed by this Court in Mani
Ram Sharma and etc. v. Union of India, AIR 1986 Del 140. Reference
was also made to the judgment of the Privy Council in Vyricherla
Narayana Gajpati v. Revenue Divisional Officer Vizagpatam, AIR 1939
PC 98 in support of the same proposition.
11.Learned counsel submitted that, no doubt, DDA had entered into the
perpetual lease deed after development of the land. For such
development prices can be deducted by 1/3rd of the prince fixed by the
DDA as per the yardstick laid down by the Supreme Court in the case
RFA No.677/94 and batch Page 9
Spl. Tehsildar, Land Acqn., Vishakhapatnam v. Smt. A. Mangala Gowri
AIR 1992 SC 666. It was pointed out that in P.S. Krishna and Co. Pvt.
Ltd. v. The Land Acquisition Officer (Deputy) (Collector), Hyderabad AIR
1992 SC 421 the development charges were in fact deducted by only
20%. On this basis it was argued that the claim made by the appellants
at Rs.200/- per sq. yards was very reasonable.
12.Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents,
countered the aforesaid submissions. He tried to demolish the very
basis of the case set up by the appellants when he contended that the
sale deeds Ex.P-2, P-3 or P-4 could not even be looked into. His
argument was that, no doubt, these sale deeds were of the same area
but they were small pieces of land, namely, 450-500 sq. yards, which
was not agriculture land but Lal Dora land in the said village. He
queried as to how the appellants could take shelter under these sale
deeds as the land falling in Lal Dora had no comparison with the
agriculture land inasmuch as, value of Lal Dora land was much higher
than that of agriculture land. In so far as Ex.P-5 and P-8 are concerned,
his submission was that as per the appellants' own showing, those
lands were sold by the DDA after fully developing the said land and
creating necessary infrastructure which involved huge expenditure. He
argued that the attempt of the appellants to reduce the charges fixed
by the DDA by 1/3rd on account of development on the basis of
Supreme Court judgment in Spl. Tehsildar, Land Acqn.,
Vishakhapatnam v. Smt. A. Mangala Gowri (supra) was totally
RFA No.677/94 and batch Page 10
misconceived. He, thus, submitted that there was no material worth
the name produced by the appellants in the form of sale deed etc. on
the basis of market value of the land in question could be fixed.
13.He argued that once the documents produced by the appellants were
to be discarded, the material which was available with the Court was in
the form of judgments in other cases where land value fixed by this
Court had attained finality. These cases on which reliance could be
placed according to him were Om Prakash and Ors. v. Union of India,
104 (2003) DLT 1024 (DB). That was a case in respect of land acquired
of the same Village Sahibabad Daulatpur vide notification of the year
1983. Following earlier judgment in the case of Balbir Singh v. Union of
India, 50 (1993) DLT 40, the Court had fixed the market value at
Rs.42,000/- per bigha. His submission was that since the notification
with which we are concerned came to be issued five years later, if the
value was to be increased @ 12% per annum on compounding basis,
the compensation would come to Rs.88,100/- per bigha. Since the
learned ADJ in the impugned award had fixed the compensation at
Rs.89,620/-, the appellants were not entitled to any further increased,
was his submission.
14.He also placed heavy reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme
Court in Ranvir Singh & Anr. v. Union of India, (2005) 12 SCC 59, and
some other judgments, where in the Supreme Court has discussed
various principles to be adopted while fixing the compensation for the
land acquired by the State. His further submission was that the
RFA No.677/94 and batch Page 11
attempt on the part of the appellants to depend on the documents
relating to development for claiming compensation against
undeveloped land was not permissible.
15.We have considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties
appearing on either side with reference to the record. Before we
discuss the submissions, it would be apposite to take note of the
judgments cited by the lawyers and cull out the principles therefrom,
which are to be kept in mind while deciding such a case.
16.We start our discussion with the judgment of the Apex Court in Ranvir
Singh (supra). It is for the simple reason that in this judgment the Apex
Court has analysed, in depth, the legal position after taking note of
number of judgments relevant to the issue. More importantly, this
case relates to the acquisition of land for the development of Rohini
Residential Scheme itself. The principles which can be culled out from
the reading of this judgment are the following :-
(a) Market value of the acquired land has to be assessed not only
having regard to the comparable sales method but also
having regard to the size of the land, or other features
thereof and several other relevant factors.
(b) The market value of fully developed land cannot be compared
with a wholly undeveloped land even when they are adjoining
or situated at a little distance.
RFA No.677/94 and batch Page 12
While laying down this principle, the Court commented
upon the incorrect approach adopted by the High Court to
the contrary in the following words :-
"25. The High Court without having regard to different
sizes and different categories of land separately took into
consideration the value of 48 sq.m. of land at the rate of
Rs.150 per sq.m. It, keeping in view the fact that the Delhi
Development Authority sought to create leasehold right
whereas upon acquisition of land a freehold right would be
created, multiplied the said figure by two and arrived at a
conclusion that the market value of 1 sq.m. of land at
Rohini would be Rs.300. The mean figure thereof was
taken at Rs.200 per sq.m. as wholesale price of freehold
plots in a developed condition. From the said Rs.200, 60%
had been deducted towards costs of development and
considering the large extent of land, the retail market price
was worked out at Rs. 80 per sq.m.
26. While adopting the said method, in our opinion, the
High Court committed manifest errors. The market value
of a fully developed land cannot be compared with a
wholly underdeveloped land although they may be
adjoining or situated at a little distance. For determining
the market value it is trite, the nature of the lands plays an
important role."
(c) What price is fetched after full development cannot be the
basis for fixing compensation in respect of the land which was
agricultural (reliance was placed on Bhim Singh v. State of
Haryana, (2003) 10 SCC 529).
(d) For determining the market value, the sale deeds pertaining
to portion of lands which are subject to acquisition would be
the most relevant piece of evidence for assessing the market
value of the acquired lands. Even market conditions
prevailing as on the date of notification are relevant.
RFA No.677/94 and batch Page 13
(e) Sale price in respect of small piece of land cannot be the basis
for determination of the market value of a large stretch of
land. Isolated deed of sale showing a very high price cannot
be the sole basis for determining the market value. The Court
referred to the earlier judgment in the case of Union of India
v. Ram Phool, (2003) 10 SCC 167, wherein the judgment of
this Court granting compensation on the basis of sale price in
respect of a small piece of land was set aside observing as
under :-
"6...It has been held in a catena of decisions of this Court
that the sale price in respect of a small bit of transaction
would not be the determinative factor for deciding the
market value of a vast stretch of land. As has been stated
earlier, the extent of land acquired in the case in hand i.e.
5484 bighas. In that view of the matter, we have no
hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High Court
has wholly erred in relying upon Exhibit A-1 in determining
the market value of the acquired land extending to 5484
bighas. Since the onus is on the claimant to lead evidence
on the determination of market value and if Exhibit A-1 is
taken out of consideration, then there is no residue of
evidence on which the determination made by the High
Court enhancing the compensation awarded by the
Reference Court could be sustained."
(f) A judgment or award determining the amount of
compensation is not conclusive. It would merely be a piece of
evidence. There cannot be any fixed criteria for determining
the increase in the value of land at a fixed rate.
(g) It was not necessary that the value of the freehold lands
would be double the value of the leasehold lands. There has
to be some basis for such a conclusion. This observation was
RFA No.677/94 and batch Page 14
made while commenting upon the perpetual lease deed
executed by the DDA in respect of Rohini itself, after the
development, as is clear from para 28 of the judgment, which
reads as under :-
"28. The High Court did not consider any relevant criteria
on the basis whereof it could come to the conclusion that
the value of the freehold lands would be double the value
of the leasehold lands. The fact that in terms of the
brochure the leasehold was to be a perpetual one and the
ground rent payable therefor was absolutely nominal being
Re.1 per plot per annum for the first five years and
thereafter at the rate 2-1/2% of the total amount of
premium, which was to be enhanced only after every 30
years, was a relevant factor which should have been taken
into consideration for arriving at a finding in that behalf. It
is worth noting that the terms and conditions were set out
for sale by the Delhi Development Authority on behalf of
the President of India of perpetual leasehold rights in the
residential plots under the Rohini Scheme.
29. A large amount of money was spent for development
of Rohini over a period of 20 years. A large area has been
earmarked for schools, hospitals, community halls, etc.
May other advantages were also provided. In law it may be
perceived that the scheme floated by DDA may not be
viable and as such the possibility of reduction of the rate at
a future date could not be ruled out."
17.In K. Posayya & Ors. v. Special Tahsildar, (1995) 4 SCC 233, the Court
restated the principle of law in determining the market value, where
vast extent of land is acquired, in the following terms :-
"4. The question, therefore, is, what is the correct principle of
law to be applied in determining the market value of vast
extent of lands acquired for a project. Admittedly, Ex.A-1
dated 31-12-1980 is the torchlight for the claimants to lay
higher claim. It is a post-notification sale of the land situtated
in Chakradevarapalli. According to the claimants, it is
situated at a distance of 3 to 4 kms from Village Alivelu.
According to Land Acquisition Officer, the distance between
the two villages is 30 kms. Possession of these lands,
admittedly, was taken between 15-4-1977 i.e. prior to the
notification under Section 4(1) and 14-7-1980, shortly after
the notification under Section 4(1). It would, thus, be clear
that the sale deed was brought into existence after the
RFA No.677/94 and batch Page 15
notification and possession was taken of the lands. This is the
notorious document relied in all the subsequent references.
Only the attestor was examined in proof of the documents. It
would be obvious that it was a brought-up document to inflate
the market value of the lands under acquisition not only in
this village but in the surrounding villages. The High Court,
therefore, was right in rejecting the said document and
refusing to place reliance for determination of the
compensation, Exhibit A-2, judgment of the Single Judge of
the High Court in AS No. 2500 of 1986 arising out of OP No.
49 of 1984 of the same reference court. The lands therein
were acquired for Vengalrayasagar project. They are the wet
lands. Since the counsel for the Government did not appear
and no material was placed on record and since in earlier
cases, award was confirmed for a sum of Rs.22,000 per acre,
the Single Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs.22,000.
That is obviously an illegal approach adopted by the High
Court in determining the market value of project area i.e.
large tracts of lands covered by the project. It would appear
that the other references were not brought to the notice of the
learned Judges. Therefore, it cannot be formed the basis to
fix the market value at a higher rate, though the judgment
may be wrong."
18.Elsewhere in the same judgment, the Court pointed out that the
market value is to be determined either on the basis of the prevailing
prices of sale and purchase between willing vendor and willing vendee
or value of the crops realized applying suitable 10 years multiplier or in
the case of land valued by expert valuer, like urban properties, could
be considered for determination of the compensation. The Court
remarked that the acid test is the arm chair of the willing vendor would
offer and a prudent willing buyer, taking all relevant prevalent
conditions of the normal market, fertility of the land, location,
suitability of the purpose for which it was purchased, its existing
potentialities and likely use to which the land is capable of being put in
the same condition would, offer to pay the price, as on the date of the
notification. In case of acquisition of large tracts of lands for projects
situated in several villages, stray sale deed of small extent here and
RFA No.677/94 and batch Page 16
there would not form the basis to determine the compensation. The
reference court should be circumspect, pragmatic and careful in
analyzing the evidence and arriving at just and fair market value of the
lands under acquisition which could be fetched on the date of the
notification.
19.In Land Acquisition Officer, Kammarapally Village, Nizamabad District,
A.P. v. Nookala Rajamallu & Ors., 2003 (12) SCC 334, where the
agricultural land was acquired and sale deed in respect of Lal Dora land
was produced in evidence to show the market value, the Court opined
that while comparing the developed land with agricultural land,
deduction @ 53% of the sale price should be made, which is clear from
the following observations :-
"11. The evidence on record shows that the acquired lands
were agricultural lands. Obviously, their valuation would
differ to a considerable extent from the land used for house
sites. In such a case, necessary deductions for the extent of
land acquired for the formation of roads and other civic
amenities, expenses of development of the sites by laying on
roads, drains, sewers, water and electricity lines and the
interest on the outlays for the period of deferment of the
realization of the price, the profits on the venture, etc. are to
be made. (See Administrator General of W.B. v. Collector,
Varanasi, (1988) 2 SCC 150). In Brig. Sahib Singh Kalha v.
Amritsar Improvement Trust, (1982) 1 SCC 419 the deduction
for such development was taken as 53%.
12. In K.S. Shivadevamma v. Asstt. Commr. and Land
Acquisition Officer, (1996) 2 SCC 62 this Court held as
follows: (SCC p.65, para 10)
"10. It is then contended that 53% is not automatic
but depends upon the nature of the development and
the stage of development. We are inclined to agree
with the learned counsel that the extent of deduction
depends upon development need in each case. Under
the Building Rules 53% of land is required to be left
RFA No.677/94 and batch Page 17
out. This Court has laid as a general rule that for
laying the roads and other amenities 33 1/3% is
required to be deducted. Where the development
has already taken place, appropriate deduction needs
to be made. In this case, we do not find any
development had taken place as on that date. When
we are determining compensation under Section
23(1), as on the date of notification under Section
4(1), we have to consider the situation of the land
development if already made, and other relevant facts
as on that date. No doubt, the land possessed
potential value, but no development had taken place
as on the date. In view of the obligation on the part
of the owner to hand over the land to the City
Improvement Trust for roads and for other amenities
and his requirement to expend money for laying the
roads, water supply mains, electricity, etc. the
deduction of 53% and further deduction towards
development charges @ 33 1/3%, as ordered by the
High Court, was not illegal."
13. On applying the principles of law as set out in various
decisions referred to above to the facts of the case, we feel
that deduction at the rate of 53% from the value indicated in
Ext. B/4 would bring the rate per square yard to be around
Rs.40. The rate is accordingly fixed. The claimants shall be
entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.40 per sq yard
along with statutory entitlements including interest on
solatium. The appeals are allowed to be aforesaid extent.
Costs made easy."
20.In Raj Devi & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., 145 (2007) DLT 438 (DB),
this Court adopted the same principle and held that market value of a
fully developed land cannot be compared with a wholly undeveloped
land although they may be adjoining or situated at a little distance,
following Ranvir Singh (supra).
21.When we examine the sale deeds and other documents produced by
the appellants with reference to the aforesaid principles, it is difficult
to act thereupon. Ex.P-1 is a sale deed in respect of 500 sq.yds. of land.
Not only it is a sale deed in respect of a small piece of land, the land in
question admittedly was in lal dora, i.e. abadi area, in contrast to the
RFA No.677/94 and batch Page 18
acquired land which is agricultural. Furthermore, the sale deed is
dated 3.8.1989, which is within two months from the date of Section 4
notification that was issued on 23.6.1989. The Court has to be
circumspect in acting upon such a sale deed which is described as
"notorious document" by the Supreme Court in K. Posayya (supra).
22.Exhibit P-3, though is a sale deed of 1983, is again of a small piece of
land that, that too in lal dora, which was not only an abadi land but
developed as well. As per the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Ranvir Singh (supra), followed recently by this Court in Raj Devi (supra),
it is difficult to place reliance thereupon.
In view of this, judgments cited by the appellants and referred
to in para 10 above may not be of any help to the appellants. On the
basis of those judgments, learned counsel for the appellants have
sought to contend that the sale consideration mentioned in the sale
deeds be deducted by 33%. We may only point out as against that in
the case of Nookala Rajamallu (supra) decided in 2003, the Supreme
Court opined that while comparing the developed land with
agricultural land, deduction @ 53% of the sale price should be made.
In any case, as discussed hereinafter, since we have more reliable
evidence to act upon, it is not necessary to dwell into this issue any
further.
23.While on the one hand we have the shaky evidence in the form of
aforesaid sale deeds of small pieces of land, that too in lal dora which
RFA No.677/94 and batch Page 19
is not comparable with agricultural land, on the other hand we also
have the judgment of this Court finally determining the market value of
the land in the same vicinity acquired for same purpose, namely,
Rohini Residential Scheme. As pointed out by Mr. Sanjay Poddar, in
the case of Balbir Singh (supra), this Court had fixed the market value
at Rs.50,000/- per bigha. That was a land acquired in Village Samepur
in respect of which notification under Section 4 of the Act was
published on 27.7.1984. Acquisition was of a larger track of land.
Fixation of this market value was made basis for determining the
market value of the acquisition of land within revenue assets of some
other villages, including Samepur and Shahbad Daulatpur. We are here
concerned with the land of village Shahbad Daulatpur. Those lands
were acquired one year prior to the notification, subject matter of
Balbir Singh. Taking the market value of Rs.50,000/-, as determined in
Balbir Singh, deduction @ 12% p.a. was made for the period between
24.7.1984 to 26.3.1983 and in this manner the market value of the land
was fixed at Rs.42,000/- per bigha. These judgments would furnish
piece of evidence which is more reliable and comparable in contrast
with the evidence produced by the appellants as against the sale deeds
of lal dora, that too of small pieces of land.
24.We have in the form of the aforesaid judgments, the determination of
market value of the revenue assets in the same village Shahbad
Daulatpur; both agricultural lands and both acquisitions of vast areas in
close proximity with each other. Therefore, we find that it would be
RFA No.677/94 and batch Page 20
more appropriate to make Om Prakash (supra) as the basis for
determining the market value in the instant case as well. We may note
that when the land was acquired in the year 1983 for the same
purpose, i.e. Rohini Residential Scheme, the Court there had taken into
consideration the factor that it was in close proximity of developed or
developing areas, as is clear from the following remarks :-
"4. Before proceeding further and discussing evidence, it
will be necessary to note down the topography of the
acquired land, which was acquired for public purpose i.e.
Engineering College. The acquired land of the four revenue
estates was located towards the North of Delhi Bhawana
Auchandi Road, which in turn connects Narela Industrial
Town. From Badli Railway Station the acquired land was
located at a distance of 1 km. Western Jamuna Canal runs
towards North East side of the acquired land. Rohini
Residential Colony is located towards South of the acquired
land to the other side of Delhi Bhawana Auchandi Road.
Obviously, the entire acquired land was to be utilized and
has in fact been utilized for the purpose of Engineering
College. Though situate in four different revenue estates it
formed a compact block of land, which led to the Reference
Court proceeding to determine almost similar market value
except for small portions, which were found to be adjacent
to the road or were categorized in Block B because of the
classification made in the revenue records."
25.The Court had also taken into consideration the future potential value
of the said land, as is clear from the following discussion :-
"11. When vast area is being acquired in close proximity of
development or developing area, it may not be appropriate
to maintain the classification as per the revenue records nor
it is reasonable to resort to belting method. In order to meet
the submission made by learned Counsel for the respondent,
with reference to the land use that it had to be evaluated as
agricultural land and not possessing potentiality for being
used for raising construction, reference may be made to the
decision of Supreme Court in Municipal Committee,
Bhatinda and Others v. Balwant Singh and Others, 1995 (4)
SCC 433. In the said case as on the date of notification lands
were agricultural lands. Sanction of plans for building
purposes had not been obtained by owners. The question
considered was that whether the lands were capable of
RFA No.677/94 and batch Page 21
being considered having potential value of being put to
residential, commercial or industrial uses. Supreme Court
held that though the lands were agricultural lands, but they
were situated nearer to the built up areas within municipal
limits and thus were having potential value for residential or
commercial purposes. Thus the submission of learned
Counsel for the respondent has no force."
26.Thus, after taking into consideration all the aspects, which are also
pressed by the appellants herein, this Court had fixed the market value
of the land as on 26.3.1983 at Rs.42,000/- per bigha. Though this may
not be a conclusive evidence, having regard to the fact that there is no
other evidence produced by the appellant which can be of better
evidential value or more reliable, the aforesaid evidence is most suited
for the purpose of fixing the market value in the instant case.
27.As noted above, Notification under Section 4 of the Act in the case of
Om Prakash (supra) is of 26.3.1983. In the present case, Notification is
dated 23.6.1989. Applying the principle of appreciation in the value @
12% on compounding basis, the market value as on 23.6.1989 would
come to Rs.88,100/- per bigha. However, we find that the learned ADJ
has already awarded compensation @ Rs.89,620/- per bigha.
Therefore, no case for further enhancement is made out.
28.We, accordingly, dismiss these appeals. There shall, however, be no
order as to costs.
(A.K. SIKRI)
JUDGE
September 30, 2008 (MANMOHAN SINGH)
hp/nsk JUDGE
RFA No.677/94 and batch Page 22
