Delhi High Court
Gabbo Through Lrs. vs Union Of India & Anr on 2 July, 2012
Author: Sunil Gaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: May 24, 2012
Pronounced on: July 02, 2012
+ R.F.A. No. 537/1999
GABBO
Through LRs. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Brij Bhushan Gupta and
Mr.Harsh Hari Haran, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
% 02.07.2012
1. What is sought in this appeal is the enhancement of
compensation assessed in respect of the land of Village Ghazipur
acquired in pursuance to the Notification of 29th April, 1981 under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.
2. Impugned Judgment of 3rd May, 1999 grants compensation at
the rate of `60,060/- per bigha to the Appellant, while relying upon
allotment of sizeable land in this village by the DDA to the Food
Corporation of India at the rate of `70 per sq. meter in September,
1979. The sale instances of the neighbourhood were not relied upon
by the Reference Court in view of the decision of the Apex Court in
Kanwar Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India; (1998) 8 SCC 136,
holding that when relevant sale instance of the village in question is
available, then there is no occasion to look to sale instances of
R.F.A.No.537/1999 Page 1
neighbouring village.
3. At the hearing of this Appeal, without distinguishing the
decision in Kanwar Singh (supra), learned counsel for the Appellant
had relied upon the decisions in Anil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of
India, 2000 (54) DRJ(DB); and Rattan Lal and Others vs. Union of
India and Ors., 2002 I AD (Delhi) 192, to contend that the rates of
land as notified by the Government form a valid basis to determine
the compensation and in view of the better occasion of the land in
question vis-a-vis the land acquired in Village Kondli, compensation
at the rate of `2,01,600/- per bigha is claimed in this Appeal.
4. According to learned counsel for the Appellant, the Reference
Court has failed to consider the principle of parity in assessing
compensation and has ignored the sale instances of similar acquired
lands of the adjacent villages.
5. It was contended by learned counsel for the Appellant that the
Reference Court has erred in not appreciating the true potential of
acquired land which is now surrounded by group housing complexes
etc. and has also erred in not awarding interest on solatium.
6. Adoption of the rate of allotment of land in this village by
DDA to Food Corporation of India in the year 1979 by the Reference
Court, in the impugned judgment is assailed by Appellant's counsel
by contending that the said rate of allotment was highly subsidized
and so could not have been the basis of determination of fair
compensation in respect of the acquired land in the year 1981. Thus,
enhancement of compensation is sought in this Appeal while relying
upon the sale instance of Village Kondli by placing reliance upon the
decision in Anil Kumar (supra) of Village Kondli wherein
compensation was assessed at the rate of `345 per sq. yard in respect
of acquisition of the year 1980.
R.F.A.No.537/1999 Page 2
7. Respondent's counsel on the other hand, supports the
impugned judgment and relies upon the decision in Kanwar Singh
(supra) to contend that the compensation assessed is reasonable one
and so this Appeal merits rejection.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of
the record of this case and the decisions cited, I am of the considered
view that the Reference Court has not committed any error or
illegality in relying upon the instance (Ex. AW-7/1) of this village to
assess the compensation as the law laid down by the Apex Court in
Kanwar Singh (supra) regarding giving of preference to the
proximate instances of the same village instead of relying upon
instances of neighbouring village holds the field till date.
9. Reference Court has correctly taken the date of instance
(Ex.AW-7/1) as 9th September, 1977 while computing appropriate
escalation of 12% per annum for the period of 43 months, i.e., the
period between the instance (Ex.AW-7/1) and the acquisition
Notification.
10. Reliance placed by appellant's counsel upon decision in Rattan
Lal (supra) which relies upon the decision in Anil Kumar (supra) to
seek compensation at the rate of `345/- per sq.yd., is of no avail, as
the Apex Court while dealing with the acquisition of land in
pursuance of Notification of November, 1980 in respect of Village
Kondli had reduced the compensation from `345 per sq.yds. (i.e.
from `3,45,000/- per bigha to `76,550/- per bigha) with 5%
escalation in Delhi Development Authority vs. Bali Ram Sharma &
Ors. (2004) 6 SCC 533.
11. Interestingly, before the Reference Court appellant had relied
upon the instance (Ex.AW-7/1), and now the appellant cannot be
heard to say that the rate of allotment in the instance (Ex.AW-7/1) of
R.F.A.No.537/1999 Page 3
the instant Village was highly subsidized. Reliance placed upon the
decision in Anil Kumar (supra) pertaining to Village Kondli without
establishing from the evidence on record that the acquisition of land
in Village Kondli and the instant Village, i.e., Village Ghazipur is
comparable, is misplaced. Rather, it has come in the evidence of the
Attorney (AW-10) of the appellant that after crossing the National
Highway Village Khichripur comes first, thereafter Village Kondli
and then Village Dalupura and the distance between Village Dalupura
and the instant village is about two miles. Infact, it emerges from the
deposition of the Revenue Official - PW-12 that the village adjoining
the instant Village as per plan/Aks Sijra (Ex.A-12) is Village
Hasanpur and in the said plan (Ex.A-12) Village Kondli whose
instance is now relied upon, is nowhere shown. Pertinently, the
acquisition of land in question was primarily for the District Park
Playground, etc., and so the auction rates of developed colonies
cannot be possibly applied to determine the fair market value of the
acquired land in question.
12. So far as entitlement to the statutory benefits is concerned, the
same have to be granted in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in
Sunder vs. Union of India (2001) 7 SCC 211. Finding that no case
for enhancement of the compensation is made out, this appeal is
disposed of while clarifying that the appellant shall be entitled to the
statutory benefits in terms of the decision in Sunder (supra). No
costs.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JULY 02, 2012
pkb
R.F.A.No.537/1999 Page 4
