Delhi High Court
Sukhbir Singh (Deceased) Through ... vs Union Of India on 18 September, 2012
Author: Sunil Gaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: August 30, 2012
Pronounced on: September 18, 2012
+ RFA No. 41/1999
SUKHBIR SINGH (DECEASED)
THROUGH LRS. & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Inder Singh & Ms. Vijay
Laxmi, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak,
Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
1. Enhancement of compensation sought in this appeal, relates to
an acquisition of land in Village- Wazirabad, Delhi in pursuance to
Notification of 4th September, 1967 under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act. The market value of the subject land was assessed by
the Land Acquisition Collector @ `2,100/- per bigha and the
Reference Court vide impugned judgment of 26th May, 1997 has
dismissed the reference petition of appellants, for want of evidence.
2. Enhanced compensation @ `40 per sq. yard i.e. @`40,000/-
per Bigha is sought in this appeal by learned counsel for appellants
while relying upon decisions in 'Vijay Singh & ors. vs. Union of India
& ors.', 111 (2004) DLT 751 (DB); 'Bedi Ram vs. Union of India &
Anr.', 93(2001)DLT 150 (DB) and RFA No.146/1999 'Pratap Singh
& ors. Vs. Union of India' rendered on 30th August, 2001.
3. In the instant appeal, it was urged on behalf of appellants that it
is evident from the Award in question that the acquired land is near
village abadi and across the road and away from the river. Thus, it
was contended on behalf of appellants that the acquired land had great
potential value and so, taking the market rate of the acquired land in
question @ `8,500/- per Bigha as in October, 1961, with appreciation
of 10% per annum, market rate of the acquired land in question on the
date of Notification in September, 1967 would come to `15,000/- per
Bigha.
4. While relying upon decisions in RFA No. 477/1998 'Vijay
Singh Vs. UOI' DLT III (2004) 751 & 'Bedi Ram Vs. UOI' 93 (2001)
DLT 150, learned counsel for respondent had urged that the decisions
in Pratap Singh (supra), Vijay Singh (supra) and Bedi Ram (supra),
relied upon by appellants would not serve as a guide for determining
the market value in this case, as the application of increase of 10% can
be adopted when the period between the two Notifications is only of
few years and not when the gap between the two Notifications is
substantial one and so compensation @ `8,500/- per Bigha cannot
form the basis to seek enhancement in compensation in the instant
case. Thus, it was urged that the precedents relied upon on behalf of
appellants are not shown to be comparable with the acquired land in
question and since no evidence was led by appellants, therefore, the
Reference Court has rightly dismissed the reference petition and this
appeal must also fail in absence of evidence to justify the
enhancement of compensation as claimed.
5. The respective submissions of both sides have been duly
considered in the light of the decisions cited. Thereupon, it transpires
that a Division Bench of this Court in Pratap Singh (supra), has
assessed the compensation in respect of acquisition of land of this
village @ ` 6,500/- per Bigha in relation to Notification of November,
1959 and @ `8,500/- per Bigha qua Notification of October, 1961 but
had limited the compensation to `5,000/- per Bigha as claimed, while
noting as under:-
'This Court has also determined the fair market value
payable for the lands, which were acquired in number of
revenue estates Delhi by the general notification issued on
13th November, 1959 at varying rates from Rs.3,500/- to
Rs.12,000/- per bigha, considering the location and
potentiality of the land.'
6. There is no hard and fast rule or strait- jacket formula to assess
market value of the acquired lands and in the absence of evidence
regarding potentiality of the acquired land, comparable precedents can
always be relied upon to reasonably assess the market value of the
acquired land while computing the rate of escalation in price of
acquired land @ 10% per annum. The decisions in Vijay Singh
(supra) and Bedi Ram (supra) relied upon by appellants' counsel are
found to be not comparable and hence are excluded from
consideration.
7. In Pratap Singh (supra), acquisition of land in Village
Wazirabad, Delhi was for 'Marginal Embankment on the Right Bank
of River Yamuna' and the compensation assessed was @ `8,500/- per
Bigha in relation to Notification of October, 1961. The thumb rule to
increase the market value by 10% or so is subject to the valuation
where peculiar events are available in the form of evidence to reflect
increase in growth and in appropriate cases the increase can vary in
percentage. Therefore, the enhancement of compensation to `8,500/-
per Bigha cannot be taken the basis to workout increase from the year
1961 till the year 1967, as it stands noted in Pratap Singh (supra) that
the varying rates of the land in question ranged from `3,500/- to
`12,000/- per Bigha.
8. Being conscious of the fact that no evidence has been led in the
instant matter, it is deemed fit that compensation claimed @ `5,000/-
in Pratap Singh (supra), should be made the basis to work out
compensation in the instant matter. Relevantly, in Pratap Singh
(supra), acquisition of land of the village in question was by virtue of
a Notification of March, 1970 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act, whereas in the instant matter, acquisition of land of this village is
of the year 1967. So even if 10% is made the basis, the compensation
for acquisition of land in question in the year 1967 would be about
`3,600/- per Bigha, which in the facts of this case is rounded of to
`4,000/- per Bigha, with statutory benefits in terms of Apex Court
decision in Sunder Vs. UOI (2001) 93 DLT 569.
9. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms, with no
order as to costs.
(SUNIL GAUR)
Judge
September 18, 2012
pkb/rs
