Delhi High Court
Raj Singh vs Uoi & Anr. on 19 September, 2011
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved On: 19th August, 2011
Judgment Delivered On: 19th September, 2011
+ LA.APP. 999/2010 &
CM No.6549/2011 (Cross-Objection)
RAJ SINGH ... Appellant
Through: Mr.B.S.Mann, Advocate
Mr.Deepak Khosla, Advocate and
Mr.N.S.Negi, Advocate.
Vs.
UOI & ANOTHER ... Respondents
Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate
& Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Sachin
Nawani, Mr.Siddharth Panda and Ms.K
Kaomudi Kiran, Advocates for R-1
AND
+ LA.APP. 961/2010, LA.APP. 1001/2010 & CM
No.12885/2011, LA.APP. 1007/2010 & CM No.15181/2011,
LA.APP. 1009/2010, LA.APP. 1010/2010, LA.APP.
1036/2010 & CM No.12865/2011, LA.APP. 5/2011, LA.APP.
6/2011 & CM No.6756/2011, LA.APP. 38/2011 & CM
No.6740/2011, LA.APP. 41/2011, LA.APP. 89/2011, LA.APP.
142/2011, LA.APP. 160/2011, LA.APP. 161/2011, LA.APP.
163/2011 LA.APP. 246/2011, LA.APP. 247/2011, LA.APP.
248/2011, LA.APP. 298/2011, LA.APP. 347/2011, LA.APP.
375/2011, LA.APP. 386/2011, LA.APP. 387/2011, LA.APP.
394/2011, LA.APP. 397/2011, LA.APP. 406/2011, LA.APP.
407/2011.
(Relating to Notification u/Sec. 4 dated 15.09.2000 &
Award No. 06/2002-2003, Village-Bhalswa Jahangir Puri)
AND
LA.App.No.999/2010 & connected matters Page 1 of 22
+ LA.APP. 57/2011 & CM No.12871/2011, LA.APP.
88/2011 LA.APP. 130/2011, LA.APP. 132/2011, LA.APP.
164/2011, LA.APP. 200/2011, LA.APP. 201/2011, LA.APP.
202/2011, LA.APP. 216/2011, LA.APP. 240/2011, LA.APP.
241/2011, LA.APP. 242/2011, LA.APP. 243/2011, LA.APP.
244/2011, LA.APP. 245/2011, LA.APP. 323/2011,
LA.APP.346/2011, LA.APP. 348/2011 & CM No.15194/2011,
LA.APP.349/2011 & CM No.15182/2011, LA.APP. 373/2011,
LA.APP. 374/2011, LA.APP. 376/2011, LA.APP. 380/2011,
LA.APP. 382/2011, LA.APP. 393/2011, LA.APP. 398/2011,
LA.APP. 399/2011, LA.APP. 400/2011, LA.APP. 408/2011,
LA.APP. 410/2011, LA.APP. 414/2011.
(Relating to Notification u/Sec. 4 dated 30.07.1998 &
Award No. 18/2000-2001, Village- Bhalswa Jahangir Puri)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest?
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
1. I proceed with an apology to the reader by referring to a
notification issued later in point of time and then to a
notification issued prior in point of time; but the reason is that
the learned counsel for the land owners had addressed
arguments with respect to the notification issued later and had
required price to be suitably reduced pertaining to the
notification which was issued earlier in point of time.
2. Land measuring 758-01 bigha situated in the revenue
estate of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri was acquired pursuant
to a notification dated 15.09.2000 issued under Section 4 of
the Land Acquisition Act 1894, for a public purpose, namely,
„Rehabilitation of JJ Cluster‟. This was followed by a declaration
under Section 6 of the said Act issued on 17.04.2001. After
following the due process, the Land Acquisition Collector
announced his award bearing No.6/2002-03 dated 20.04.2002,
whereby he assessed the fair market value of the acquired
land at `2,87,916.66 per bigha, which is equivalent to `13.82
lakhs per acre i.e. fair market value as of 15.09.2000 was fixed
at `13.82 lakhs per acre.
3. Dissatisfied with the assessment made by the Land
Acquisition Collector, the land owners sought reference under
Section 18 of the said Act. The Learned Reference Court, in
the lead matter, being LAC No.112A/2008 titled Raj Singh Vs.
Union of India, assessed the fair market value of the acquired
land at `3,03,534 per bigha or `14,56,963 per acre.
4. It needs to be highlighted that both i.e. the learned Land
Acquisition Collector as well as the Learned Reference Court,
while assessing the fair market value of the acquired land,
adopted the minimum price for agricultural land fixed by the
Government as on 01.04.2000, notified vide Circular dated
11.09.2011. Different destinations were reached inasmuch as
the learned Land Acquisition Collector, while assessing the
compensation, did not grant appreciation for the period from
01.04.2000 till the date notification under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act was issued on 15.09.2000, but the
learned Reference Court granted appreciation for the said
period of 165 days @ 12% per annum with reference to the
base date 1.4.2000 and the price `13.82 lakhs per acre.
5. Another parcel of land ad-measuring 929-05 bigha,
situated in the same revenue estate of village Bhalswa
Jahangir Puri was acquired pursuant to a notification issued
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, dated
30.07.1998, for the same public purpose i.e. „Rehabilitation of
JJ Cluster‟. This was followed by a declaration under Section 6
of the Act issued on 04.08.1998. After following the due
process, the Land Acquisition Collector announced an award
bearing No.18/2000-01 dated 12.03.2001, whereby he
assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at
`2,33,333 per bigha which is equivalent to `11.20 lakhs per
acre.
6. Dissatisfied with the assessment made by the Land
Acquisition Collector, the land owners sought reference under
Section 18 of the Act. The Learned Reference Court, in the
lead matter being LAC No.111A/2008 titled Chandrawati Vs.
Union of India, assessed the fair market value of the acquired
land at `11,46,670/- per acre. The difference in the
destination reached is on the same reason as noted
hereinabove pertaining to the notification dated 15.9.2000 i.e.
the learned Land Acquisition Collector adopting the land rate
notified by the Government with effect from 1.4.1997 vide
circular dated 25.7.1997 and ignoring that the notification in
question was issued on 30.7.1998 and the learned Reference
Court granting enhancement @ 11% per annum for the
interregnum period.
7. The Union of India as well as the land owners have
challenged the assessment made by the Learned Reference
Court by way of the appeals and cross objections mentioned
above.
8. On behalf of the land owners, justifying higher
compensation, reliance was placed on the following
documentary evidence:-
(a) The rate notified by the L&DO vide notification
dated 16.04.1999 (Exhibit PW-4/1), whereby it
disclosed its intention to charge unearned increase in
respect of developed residential and commercial
properties owned by L&DO. Relying on this
document, it was argued that in the year 1999, the
rate of residential land in Azadpur, which is stated to
be close to village Bhalaswa Jahangir Puri, was fixed
at `5830/- per square meter or `2,35,92,400.92 per
acre and it was urged that if 50% is deducted
towards development cost, the land owners should
be entitled to enhanced compensation in sum of
`1,17,96,200/- per acre.
(b) The rate charged by MCD for allotment of
commercial plot in Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, in
terms of the Resolution No.705 dated 23.11.1987
(Exhibit PW-3/1), whereby MCD decided to allot
developed plots to the transporters @ `425/- per
square meter and Exhibit PW-3/2, a copy of the
Resolution No.610 dated 21.02.2005, whereby MCD
decided to allot the plots in Sanjay Gandhi Transport
Nagar @ `4,500/- per square metre were urged to be
material and good evidence. Relying on these
documents, learned counsel for the land owners
argued that the rate stated in the resolutions
aforenoted, which was applicable for the year 1976,
would evidence that fair market value of developed
land comes to `17,19,857/- per acre and it was urged
that even if 50% deduction is made on account of the
development costs, for undeveloped lands, fair
market value would come to `8,59,928/- per acre in
the year 1976 and increasing the same by 12% per
annum, the fair market value as of 15.9.2000 would
be `24,76,592/- per acre.
(c) Learned counsel for the land owners also
placed reliance on the auction record of plots in
Rohini Residential Scheme in the year 1997-98 and
1998-99 (Exhibits PW-8/2 and PW-8/3). While relying
on the brochure of DDA pertaining to the year 2006,
it was argued that as per the advertisement auctions
were held qua flats having plinth area of 69 square
metre to 71 square metre in Jahangir Puri at a price
ranging between `23.72 lakh to `28.4 lakh, which
according to learned counsel translates to a price of
`14,36,36,363 per acre and counsel urged that
suitable deduction could be effected therefrom
pertaining to undeveloped agricultural land.
(d) Relying on a sale deed of village Khera Khurd
(Exhibit PW-15/1), whereunder land measuring 2-19
bigha was sold @ `32,40,300/- on 25.04.2001,
learned counsel urged that the price per acre comes
to `56,93,163/- or `11,86,169/- per bigha. It was
contended that this sale deed should be relied upon,
after making a reasonable deduction towards
development cost to determine the fair market value
of undeveloped agricultural land in village Bhalswa
Jahangir Puri. Another sale deed dated 24.03.2000
(Exhibit PW-15/2), whereby land measuring 4-16
bigha situated in the revenue estate of village
Mamurpur was sold to Radha Swami Satsang Vyas at
a price of `26,75,000/- per acre was also relied upon.
(e) Learned counsel for the land owners also relied
upon an Agreement to Sell (Exhibit PW-6/1) which was
executed by one Shri Khushi Ram in favour of a
society „M/s.Butterfly‟, whereunder land was agreed to
be sold on 05.08.1996 @ `18 lakhs per acre. It was
urged that the land was in the revenue estate of
village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri and thus was pressed in
aid as good evidence of fair market value of land in
the said village as of the date of the agreement to sell
i.e. 5.8.1996.
9. Per contra, Sh.Sanjay Poddar learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of Union of India relied on a Sale Deed
dated 05.06.1996 (Exhibit R-2), whereunder 1-03 bigha of land
in village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri was sold at a price of
`1,40,000 and urged that even if 12% appreciation per annum
is to be given on said value, the price as on the date of the
notification under Section 4 comes to `1,94,782 per bigha, and
thus it was argued that since price of similar land is available
in the same village, it would be imprudent to travel to the
adjoining village or to adopt the price of developed land for
fixing the market value of undeveloped agricultural land
having a vast area. Learned counsel also argued that the
learned Land Acquisition Collector has assessed the fair
market value of the land at a price much higher than the one
reflected in Exhibit R-2 and so has the learned Reference
Court.
10. It may be noted that when judgment was reserved in the
above captioned matters on 19th August, 2011, decision had
been reserved for judgment in a batch of land acquisition
appeals, lead matter being LA.App.No.266/2008 titled Jai Singh
Vs. UOI & Anr. in which similar arguments as were advanced
with respect to similar evidence relied upon in the instant
appeals and learned senior counsel Sh.Sanjay Poddar
submitted that in response to the arguments of learned
counsel for the land owners, the arguments which he had
advanced on the earlier occasion may be treated as his
response.
11. The topography of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri has
come out in the deposition of Shri Trilok Chand (Halqa Patwari)
who appeared as PW-2 in LAC No.112A/2008 titled Raj Singh
Vs Union of India in which he has explained the topology of the
area while proving the Aks Sizra Ex.PW-2/1 of village Bhalswa
Jahangir Puri. His testimony would reveal that village Kadipur
and Libaspur are situated in the North, villages Mukhmelpur
and Burari are situated in the East, villages Samaipur Badli and
Haiderpur are situated in the West and villages Bharola and
Sarai Pipalthala are situated in the South of village Jahangir
Puri.
12. I may additionally note that the lay out plan of the
National Capital Territory of Delhi, published by the
Government of NCT Delhi would reveal that village Bhalswa
Jahangir Puri is situated on the eastern side of G.T.Karnal Road
i.e. National Highway No.1. Villages Badli, Samaipur, Libaspur,
Khera Kalan, Alipur, Mamoorpur (Narela) are on the western
side of National Highway No.1.
13. It needs to be highlighted that whatever development
took place in the revenue estate of village Jahangir Puri, post
acquisition of agricultural lands in the revenue estate of said
village was for re-settlement of slum and J.J. dwellers i.e. the
character of urbanization in the area was of a kind where
potential price increased due to urbanization was of a weak
nature. In the decision reported as Amar Singh Vs. Union of
India 1998 (V) AD (Delhi) 481, it was noted that there existed a
resettlement colony called Jahangir Puri in the area which had
sprung up during the period of emergency i.e. the year 1975-
76. It has to be remembered that the two subject acquisitions
were also for re-settlement of slum and J.J.Clusters.
14. The decision in LA.App.No.266/2008 Jai Singh Vs. UOI &
Anr. which was reserved on 12.8.2011 and had yet to be
pronounced on 19.8.2011, when instant appeals were reserved
for judgment, has since been pronounced by me on 23.8.2011
and I would highlight that while assessing the fair market
value of the land situated in 10 revenue estates in the same
revenue district i.e. North-West Delhi being revenue estate of
villages Pooth Khurd, Shahpur Garhi, Sanoth, Alipur, Narela,
Rajapur Kalan, Holambi Kalan, Khera Khurd, Holambi Khurd
and Bawana, I had noted that the topology of the area
constituted a „V‟ at the point of intersection where G.T.Karnal
Road i.e. NH-1 and Rohtak Road i.e. NH-10 bifurcated at a
common point, proceeding in different directions, at Sabzi
Mandi. It needs to be highlighted that village Bhalswa Jahangir
Puri is outside the „V‟ aforesaid and as explained hereinabove
and abuts towards the east of NH-1.
15. In the appeals relating to the said 10 villages where land
were acquired pursuant to different notifications issued from
time to time I had dealt with notifications issued in the year
2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. In those cases, learned counsel
for the land owners had relied upon the sale deed dated
25.04.2001 (Exhibit PW-15/1) and the sale deed dated
24.03.2000 (Exhibit PW-15/2) i.e. the same sale deeds on
which learned counsel for the land owners have placed
reliance upon as noted in sub-para (d) of para 8 hereinabove.
In the said judgment dated 23.8.2011, I have discarded these
two sale deeds for the reasons recorded in paragraphs 21 to
23 which are reproduced hereunder:-
21. The first argument is predicated on the 2 sale
deeds, Ex.PW-1/3 which is dated 25.3.2000, and the
sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 which is dated 25.4.2001. As
per the former, fair market value for the former
comes to `26.75 lakhs per acre and the latter @
`63.478 lakhs per acre. The learned Reference
Court has rejected the 2 sale deeds as reliable
evidence to determine fair market value of
agricultural lands, for all the villages in question on
the reasoning that the sale deed Ex.PW-1/3 was
purchased by a religious trust by the name of
„Radha Swami Satsang‟ and Suraj Bhan PW-6 who
had tendered the sale deed in evidence, while
deposing in Court in LAC No.68/2005 had stated
that to his knowledge the land was purchased for
religious purpose and was being used for a religious
purpose. The sale deed Ex.PW-1/2 has likewise
been held not to be reliable evidence to determine
fair market value of agricultural lands on the
reasoning it was purchased by a Non Government
Organization "Christian Organization" and as per
the testimony of PW-7 Sister Annie, the secretary of
the organization stated that the organization had to
pay the price for the said piece of land as it was the
only plot of the requisite size suitable for the
requirement of the organization and is being used
for destitute women i.e. there was a special
circumstance, personal to the vendee.
22. As held in the decisions reported as 1995 (1)
SCC 717 Land Acquisition Officer Eluru & Ors. Vs.
Jsti Rohini & Anr. (Refer para 6) and 2009 (14) SCC
369 Mohd. Raufuddin Vs. Land Acquisition Officer
(Refer para 13) sale transactions evidenced in a
sale deed which are tendered in evidence by virtue
of Section 51A of the L.A.Act 1894 have not to be
ipso facto treated as an exemplar sale deed to
determine the market value of land in an area for
the reason there may be special circumstances
which have led the buyer to pay a higher price. The
true test is the price which a well informed willing
buyer would pay to an equally well informed seller
without being influenced by any special
circumstances or the fancy to buy a particular piece
of land. An informed buyer would be one who has
studied the market and has apprised himself of all
available land in the area; has understood the
topology of the area and the prevailing prices. If a
buyer has a fancy for a particular piece of land, he
may pay a much higher price and this would not be
a good index of fair market value of the lands in the
area. I would be failing if I do not highlight that the
Union of India had relied upon the sale deed dated
20.5.2002, which was accepted by the learned
Reference Court pertaining to the notification dated
27.1.2003 where-under agricultural land in village
Rajapur Kalan was sold by an agriculturist to an
agriculturist for a much lesser price i.e. `17,74,109/-
per acre as against the price which comes to
`63.478 lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/2 and `28.89
lakhs per acre for Ex.PW-1/3. The 2 sale deeds
Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3, themselves are having
intrinsic evidence of the fanciful price and ex-facie
destroy each other.
23. Thus, apart from the reasoning of the learned
Reference Court, with which I concur, afore-noted
reasons in para 21 above would be additional
reasons to hold that the 2 sale deeds would
advisably not be good evidence wherefrom fair
market value of subject lands can be determined
and more so for the reason I find that under various
awards nearly between 7,000 to 8,000 bigha of land
have been acquired and when the acquisition is of
such large an area, it would make all the more a
reason to be circumspect on sale deeds having
intrinsic evidence of the transaction being the result
of a fancy of the buyer. I would be failing not to
note an unreported decision cited by learned
counsel Sh.I.S.Dahiya being the decision dated
19.12.2008 disposing of a batch of appeals, lead
matter being LA.App.No.193/2006 Pratap Singh
(since deceased) thru LRs Vs. UOI & Ors. It was
highlighted that the sale deed therein by which L&T
had purchased 8 bigha and 9 biswa of agricultural
land for expansion of its factory which had been
ignored by the learned Reference Court on the
ground that L&T had a fancy for the said land and
hence the price reflected therein could not be
treated as a good evidence of value of land in the
area, was rejected by the Court and the price in
question, with suitable deduction on account of the
parcel of land being large, was accepted by the
Court and thus even in the instant cases the 2 sale
deeds in question i.e. Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3
should be treated as the basis to determine fair
market value. The argument ignores the reasoning
in the decision of the Division Bench in paras 37 to
38 wherein the Division Bench, did not accept the
value in the sale deed on its own logic as indicative
of the market value, but found that if the price
therein was reduced by 1/3rd, the price arrived at
would be the same as would be price arrived at with
reference to the average rate of the sale deeds
produced by the Union of India i.e. the sale deeds
produced by the Government were giving a price of
`1,37,000/- per bigha and the sale deed under
which L&T had purchased the land gave the price
`3,26,600/- per bigha and the average would come
to `2,31,800/- which was near about the price of
`2,15,160/- per bigha, if 1/3rd would be deducted
from the sum of `3,26,600/-. It may further be
highlighted that in the said judgment the year of
the sale was 1993 and the notification under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was dated
24.7.1995 and 16.11.1995 and the Court
determined fair market value as of the said dates at
the same sum arrived at as aforesaid i.e.
`2,15,160/-. In other words, the reasoning of the
Division Bench is not to be read pedantically but
meaningfully. It is not that the Court treated the
sale deed in question as the basis for if it was so,
the appreciation for 2 years had required to be
given. I would highlight once again, that I have
hereinbefore already noted the inherent
contradiction in the value of the land price as per
the 2 sale deeds and this itself is intrinsic mutually
destructive evidence of the 2 sale deeds reflecting
fair market value."
16. For the reasons therein, I reject these two sale deeds in
the present case also as reliable and good evidence to
determine fair market value of agricultural land in village
Bhalswa Jahangir Puri.
17. As regards the agreement to sell (Exhibit PW-6/1), the
land situated in village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri has been agreed
to be transferred for a sum of `18 lakhs per acre. The land
owners have also relied upon another sale deed dated
01.07.2003 whereunder 4-16 bigha i.e. 1 acre land was sold at
`15,70,000/-.
18. Now, if the price, as per the own showing of the land
owners was `15,70,000/- per acre as on 01.07.2003, it is
difficult to comprehend the abnormally high value as per
Ex.PW-6/1 which is dated 8.4.1996 in which the stated price is
`18 lakhs per acre. It is indeed a puzzle that in 1996 the price
was `18 lakhs per acre and 7 years down the line the price fell
to `15.7 lakhs per acre. I need to highlight that in paragraph
39 of its decision, the learned Reference Court, while
examining Ex.PW-6/1 has opined that the said price was for
special considerations and not the price settled between an
informed willing buyer and an informed willing seller and
without being influenced by special needs pertaining to a
particular land, and had thus discarded the said sale deed as
not reliable evidence wherefrom fair market value of a large
track of land had to be fixed.
19. I have discussed this issue in my decision dated
23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008 Jai Singh Vs. UOI & Anr. i.e.
where an abnormally high price for a parcel of land is with
evidence of neither the buyer nor the seller being well-
informed and there being a special feature qua the land and
have held the same not to be good evidence to determine fair
market value of a large part of land, being the fanciful price
paid by a buyer smitten with fancy, which observations have
already been extracted by me hereinabove i.e. paras 22 and
23 of the said decision. I reiterate the same.
20. As regards auction rates of developed plot of land
situated in the Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, I do not find
any substance in the arguments of the learned counsel for the
land owners and concur with the decision of the learned
Reference Court contained in paragraphs 29 and 30 which are
premised on the decision of the Supreme Court reported as Lal
Chand Vs. Union of India 2009 (15) SCC 769. Similar is the
reasoning pertaining to the evidence relating to auction rates
of residential plots or flats by DDA.
21. In my decision dated 23.8.2011 in LA.App.No.266/2008
Jai Singh Vs. UOI & Ors., I had extensively discussed the law
declared by the Supreme Court in Lal Chand‟s case with
reference to price at which developed plots were allotted by
different agencies i.e. DDA and DSIDC. Relevant observations
and findings in para 29 to 31 of the decision in Jai Singh‟s case
are extracted hereunder:-
29. Now, we do not have evidence as to what was
the extent of plotted land sold by DSIDC or DDA with
reference to the Bawana Industrial Estate developed
by DSIDC and Narela Residential Scheme developed
by DDA. Whether it was 20% or 75%, we do not know.
The inchoate evidence has resulted in the same
factors, being 3 in number which were noted by the
Supreme Court in Lal Chand‟s case (supra), which
render this evidence as most unreliable to determine
the value of land in the subject cases.
30. It is no doubt true, as held even by the learned
Reference Court, that with the development of
Bawana Industrial Area, Rohini Residential Scheme
and Narela Residential Scheme, the subject lands had
acquired a building potentiality, but the question
would be what would be the value to which the
building potentiality would translate itself.
31. I hold that the learned Reference Court, keeping
in view the observation and the findings of the
Supreme Court in Lal Chand‟s case (supra) has rightly
rejected said evidence as reliable. On the issue of
potentiality relating itself to the value, I promise the
reader of the decision, to deal with the same while I
shall be discussing as to what should be the fair
market value of the lands.
22. Highlighting that in Lal Chand‟s case (supra) the
Supreme Court held that such raw data was meaningless and
was too inchoate wherefrom fair market value could be
crystallized.
23. I reiterate the reasoning to hold that price at which MCD
allotted developed plots in Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar and
price at which DDA sold developed plots and flats would be
irrelevant to determine fair market value of agricultural land.
24. Pertaining to price notified by L&DO for charging
unearned increase when lease-hold property under L&DO is
transferred by the perpetual lessee, suffice would it be to state
that the same relates to developed plots and on the parity of
reasoning in Lal Chand‟s case (supra) wherein this kind of
evidence was specifically discussed and discarded with
reference to village Rithala where lands were acquired for
Rohini Residential Scheme, I negate the plea for compensation
to be enhanced with reference to L&DO rates noting that I am
concerned with large tracks of lands ad-measuring 758.01
bigha and 929.05 bigha.
25. From the topology of the area and as per the testimony
of Trilok Chand (Halka Patwari) who appeared as PW-2 in LAC
No.112A/2008 it emerges that village Burari is on the east of
village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri and indeed the plan for Delhi
would reveal that the two villages i.e. Bhalswa Jahangir Puri
and Burari are separated by the outer ring road as we travel
towards Mubarka Chowk from the Tibetan Re-settlement
colony adjoining the famous Gurudwara Majnu Ka Tila. The
two are adjoining villages separated by „Outer Ring Road‟ and
thus the fair market value of land on a particular date in the
two villages would be comparable.
26. While assessing the fair market value of the land situated
in village Burari, which was acquired pursuant to notifications
dated 24.07.1998 and 18.07.2003 issued under Section 4 of
the Land Acquisition Act, I had considered the material on
record i.e. the evidence in my decision pronounced on
7.6.2011 in a batch of LA.Appeals, lead matter being L.A.
Appeal No.971/2008 titled Rajbal & Ors. Vs. Union of India &
Ors. In the said decision, I had assessed the fair market value
of agricultural land at `11,60,580.82 per acre for Category A
land, `10,44,522.73 per acre for Category B land and
`9,28,464.65 per acre for Category C land pertaining to the
notification dated 24.7.1998. The land acquired pursuant to
notification dated 18.07.2003 had been assessed by me at
`19,20,568/- per acre for Category A land and `17,28,512/- per
acre for Category B land. In Jai Singh‟s case (supra), I had
assessed the fair market value of land in 10 villages as under:-
S.No. Village Name Date of Notification Fair market
under Section 4 value (in lakhs
per acre)
1. Pooth Khurd 7.8.2000 `14.75 for
Category „A‟
`14.3728 for
Category „B‟
2. Holambi Kalan 7.8.2000 `14.75
3. Bawana 7.8.2000 `14.75 for
Category „A‟
`14.38125 for
Category „B‟
4. Khera Khurd 11.9.2000 `14.835 for
Category „A‟
`14.46413 for
Category „B‟
5. Narela 2.5.2001 `16.165 for
Category „A‟
`15.76087 for
Category „B‟
6. Holambi Kalan 22.8.2001 `16.745 for
Category „A‟
`16.43811 for
Category „B‟
7. Alipur 22.8.2001 `16.745 for
Category „A‟
`16.43811 for
Category „B‟
8. Holambi Khurd 22.8.2001 ` 16.745 for
Category „A‟
`16.43811 for
Category „B‟
9. Rajapur Kalan 22.8.2001 `16.745 for
Category „A‟
`16.43811 for
Category „B‟
10. Sanoth 7.12.2001 `17.295
11. Shahpur Garhi 16.5.2002 `18.655
12. Shahpur Garhi 23.5.2002 `18.655
13. Holambi Kalan 23.5.2002 `18.655
14. Alipur 23.5.2002 `18.655
15. Sanoth 27.1.2003 `19.435 for
Category „A‟
`18.94912 for
Category „B‟
`18.47539 for
Category „C‟
16. Rajapur Kalan 27.1.2003 `19.435 for
Category „A‟
`18.94912 for
Category „B‟
`18.47539 for
Category „C‟
27. In Jai Singh‟s case (supra) I had also analyzed the
minimum land rates enhanced by the Government from time
to time and found the same not to be the ipse dixit of the
Government officers and had found not only rationale but a
reflection of urbanization impacting such increase. With
reference to the decisions of four Division Benches of this
Court reported as 2006 IV AD Delhi 13 Gajraj Singh Vs. UOI &
Anr., 2004 IV AD Delhi 20 Ram Chander Vs. UOI, 111 (2004)
DLT 95 Hukum Singh Vs. UOI and an unreported decision in
LA.App.No.866/2005 Mahender Singh Vs. UOI & Ors. decided
on 11.5.2006 wherein based on sale deeds and other evidence
land price was determined on various dates between the years
1993 to 1996 and in relation to the minimum price fixed by the
Government I had highlighted in paras 50 to 53 of the said
decision as under:-
"50. The aforesaid judgments noted in the preceding
paragraphs as also the various notifications issued from
time to time by the Government of NCT Delhi notifying
minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi as tabulated
by me in para 7 above bring out two very important facts
relevant to determine the growth/rise in the prices of
agricultural land in Delhi over the years commencing
from the year 1990. As of 27.4.1990 minimum price was
`4.65 lakhs per acre which rose to `10 lakhs per acre as
of 1.4.1997 i.e. the increase is `5.35 lakhs spread over 7
years which gives us a 115.054% increase in 7 years and
the average price increase would be 16.436%. The price
rise over the next 1 year is by 11.2% and thereafter by
11% for the next 2 years and 11.5% for the next year i.e.
as of 1.4.2001. It shows that due to urbanization,
between the year 1990 and 1997 prices grows fairly
sharply and good corroborative evidence for this would
be the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in
Gajraj‟s case (supra), which I have discussed in para 49
above.
51. I need to elaborate a little more with respect to the
decision in Gajraj‟s case. Discussing the evidence
pertaining to fair market value of agricultural land in
village Holambi Kalan as of 15.11.1996, in paras 9 to 17
the Court discussed the valuation on the basis of
agricultural yield and found that the gross return per acre
per annum was `95,000/- for multiple cropped land and
having good irrigation facilities and thus capitalized the
land price at `9.5 lakhs per acre. Discussing the second
method of land prices of comparable lands in the
surrounding areas including potentiality, in para 19
onwards the Court discussed the matter with reference to
land prices in adjoining village Bhorgarh where FCI
Godowns had come up and based on sale instances
found that based on the said sale instances and giving
benefit of industrialization the land price would come to
`10,03,364/- per acre (Refer para 31). The Court then
considered the prices notified by the Government as per
policy dated 1.4.1997 and thus worked out the mean
average figure of `9,76,121/- per acre for Category „A‟
lands and `9,51,121/- per acre for Category „B‟ lands.
The decision highlights that the potentiality had been
well-factored in when the Government issued the
minimum price notification w.e.f. 1.4.1997, evidenced by
the fact that even with respect to sale transactions the
Court found that as against the minimum price notified
as of 1.4.1997 at `10 lakhs per acre, sale instances were
highlighting that the price was `10,03,364/- per acre.
52. The decision in Mahender Singh‟s case, pertaining
to village Bawana, referred to by me in para 49 above,
highlights with reference to para 28 to 31 of the decision
that the Master Plan for Delhi 1990 had been taken into
account by the Court which was projecting residential,
commercial and industrial future exploitation of
agricultural land in Delhi and on the issue of potentiality
had noted that notwithstanding the Master Plan so
projecting and the lands theoretically acquiring a
potentiality, the same had not translated into a reality
evidenced by the fact that till the year 1996 i.e. the date
of the notification with which the Division Bench was
concerned, virtually no development had taken place in
village Bawana and Holambi Kalan and nobody had
exploited the potential. As I have already highlighted in
para 49 above there is a gap between what would be
expected to be the market growth and what the market
actually grows. The decisions in Gajraj‟s case and
Mahender Singh‟s case highlight that potentiality
translated itself into a reality between 1990 and 1997
when prices rose by about 16.5% per annum and
thereafter the extended potentiality did not translate
with the requisite momentum and the acceleration fell to
between 10% per annum to 11% per annum. One reason
could be that pursuant to Master Plan for Delhi 1990 a
fairly large area came to be developed, both residential,
commercial and industrial and probably there was
enough availability of developed land and the hunger of
the market got saturated.
53. The empirical evidence in the instant case, apart
from the 2 sale deeds relied upon by the land owners, in
respect whereof the learned Reference Court has given
good reasons not to rely upon and for which I have given
further reasons in paras 21 and 22 hereinabove for not
relying upon, being fanciful sale deeds, to determine fair
market value, we have with us the sale deed relied upon
by the learned Land Acquisition Collector pursuant
whereto in some references in village Rajapur Kalan the
learned Reference Court has held that as per the said
sale deed Ex.R-2 as of the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002
the fair market value of agricultural lands would be
`19,16,040/- per acre as of 27.1.2003 on the reasoning
that 1 bigha and 13 biswa of land which was sold for
`5,39,690/- and `70,160/- was paid as stamp duty would
mean that `6,09,850/- (`5,39,690/- + `70,160/-) were
spent would yield the price `17,74,109/- per acre as of
the date of the sale i.e. 20.5.2002.
28. In the absence of any cogent evidence placed on record
by either parties other than the minimum price notified by the
Government from time to time, I hold that the Learned
Reference Court has rightly adopted the correct principle and
has relied upon the correct evidence and has given the correct
appreciations by suitably increasing the price to make up the
interregnum period between the dates when minimum prices
were notified and the date of the notification issued under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and finding no scope to
further enhance the compensation or to reduce the same I
dismiss all appeals and cross objections, whether filed by the
land owners or the Union of India.
29. I leave the parties to bear their own cost.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 19, 2011
mm
