Ravinder Singh vs Uoi & Anr.
2013 Latest Caselaw 2223 Del

       *       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                    Date of Decision: 14.05.2013

+      RFA 454/2001

       RAVINDER SINGH                                         ..... Appellant

                        Through:     Shri I.S. Dahiya, Advocate for the appellant.


                                     versus

       UOI & ANR.                                              ..... Respondent

                        Through: Shri Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Advocate with
                        Ms. KK. Pathak, Advocate for the respondent.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN

                        JUDGMENT

V.K.JAIN, J. (ORAL)

The land of the appellant, measuring 195 square yards and bearing

Municipal No. H-2/8, comprised in Khasra No. 520/487 of village Ghondli

(Krishna Nagar), Delhi, was notified vide Notification No. F-17 (25/72) L&B dated

30.11.1981. The said notification was followed by declaration dated 02.04.1982

under Section 6 of the said Act and an award being Award No. 117/86-87 was

passed on 19.09.1986. The Land Acquisition Collector in the said award, granted

compensation to the appellant at the rate of 145 per square yards. Since the

appellant was not satisfied with the compensation awarded to him by the Land

Acquisition Collector, he sought a reference under Section 18 of the said Act. On

such a reference being made to the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, the

compensation was enhanced to Rs 290/- per square yards vide order dated

20.07.1998. The appellant filed a Review Petition which also came to be

dismissed. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded to him by the

Reference Court, the appellant is before this Court by way of this appeal.

2. A perusal of the Trial Court record would show that the appellant, in support

of his claim for enhancement of compensation, relied upon the judgment dated

20.5.1997 passed by the Reference Court in LAC No. 12/1990, whereby

compensation at the rate of 390 per square yards was awarded in respect of certain

land in this very colony, i.e., village Ghondli (known as Krishna Nagar) which was

acquired vide Award No. 3/83-84 after being notified under Section 4 of the Act

vide notification dated 04.11.1976.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has today placed on record a copy of

the statement under Section 19 of Land Acquisition Act, which was sent to the

Reference Court in LAC No. 12/1990 Kaushalya Devi vs. Union of India. A

perusal of this document would show that the area of the land of Kaushalya Devi,

W/o W.R. Khurana, resident of 56/16, Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi acquired vide

Award No. 3/83-84 in village Ghondli was 237.3 square yards. The same are the

particulars given in the certified copy of the judgment available in the file of the

learned Additional District Judge.

4. A perusal of the order dated 26.05.2001 passed by the learned Additional

District Judge on the Review Petition which had been filed by the appellant would

show that during the hearing of the said petition, the learned counsel for the

respondent -Union of India informed the Court that the aforesaid order had been

challenged by them before this Court. However, no particulars of the appeal

alleged to have been filed by Union of India against the decision of the learned

Additional District Judge in LAC No. 12/1990 Kaushalya Devi vs. Union of India

are available on the file and the learned counsel for the respondent is not in a

position to confirm whether any such appeal was actually filed and if so what has

been the fate of the said appeal. The assumption, in these circumstances, would be

either no such appeal was actually filed or the appeal by Union of India was

dismissed by this Court.

4. Since I am proceeding on the assumption that the order of the learned

Additional District Judge in the case of Kaushalya Devi vs. Union of India was

not challenged or the challenge, if made, was not accepted by this Court, the

compensation awarded to Smt. Kaushalya Devi in respect of land measuring 237.3

square yards in the same locality, became final and consequently, the appellant is

entitled to the same compensation unless it can be shown that on account of

location, size, potential or for some other reason, the market value of the land of

the appellant before this Court, at the time of issue of notification under Section 4

of the Land Acquisition was lower than the value of the land of Smt. Kaushalya

Devi which was the subject matter of the decision of the learned Additional District

Judge in LAC No. 12/1990.

5. Since the area of the land acquired from the appellant was not larger than the

area of the land acquired from Smt. Kaushalya Devi and there is no material on

record to show that he land of the appellant was in any manner inferior to the land

of Smt. Kaushalya Devi or that the land of Smt. Kaushalya Devi was superior to

the land of the appellant either on account of location of their respective lands or

for some other reason, there is no scope either for increasing or decreasing the

compensation which was awarded to Smt. Kaushalya Devi, except to the extent of

increase in the value of the land with the passage of time.

6. The next question which comes up for consideration is as to how much

should be the enhancement on account of appreciation of land value between the

date of notification in the case of Kaushalya Devi (supra), i.e. 04.11.1976 and the

date of notification in the case of the appellant, i.e., 30.11.1981. This issue has

come up for consideration before Supreme Court from time to time. In Ranjit

Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh (1992) 3 SCC 659, Supreme Court

applied the rule of 10% yearly increase for award of higher compensation. In

ONGC Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel (2008) 14 SCC 745, Supreme Court

held that where the acquired land is in urban/semi-urban areas, increase can be to

the tune of 10% to 15% per annum and if the acquired land is situated in rural

areas, increase can be between 5% to 7.5% per annum. In Union of India v.

Harpat Singh (2009) 14 SCC 375, Supreme Court applied the rule of 10%

increase per annum. Taking the above-referred decisions into consideration, the

Apex Court in Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot and Ors. Vs. State of

Punjab and Ors.(2012) 5 SCC 432 fixed the annual increase at 12% per annum

while assessing market value of the land of the appellant before the Apex Court as

on the date of issue of notification. Following the said decision, I am of the

considered view that since the land in question is situated in urban area and in fact

is situated in the midst of a well-developed colony, i.e., Krishna Nagar, the

appellant is entitled to increase at the rate of 12% per annum. The learned counsel

for the appellant states that if the appreciation at the rate of 12% per annum on a

compound basis is granted, the land value would have appreciated from Rs 390/-

per square yards on 04.11.1996 to Rs 694.62 per square yards on 30.11.1991.

7. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the appeal is allowed to the extent that

the rate of compensation is fixed at Rs 694.62 per square yards. Besides

compensation, the appellant shall also be entitled to statutory increase, if

applicable, under Section 23(1)(A) of Land Acquisition Act and the solatium at the

statutory rate. The appellant will also be entitled to interest at the rate of 09% per

annum for the first year and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum on the amount

of enhanced compensation, statutory increase under Section 23(1)(A) and the

amount of solatium.

8. Since this order has proceeded on the assumption that either no appeal was

filed by Union of India against the LAC No. 12/1990 passed by the learned

Additional District Judge in the case of Kaushalya Devi (supra) or the said appeal,

if filed, was dismissed by this Court and also on the assumption that the calculation

made by the learned counsel for the appellant is correct, I grant liberty to the

respondent to seek review of this order within a period of 30 days from today if

either of these two assumptions is found to be incorrect.

9. Decree sheet be drawn by the Registry only after expiry of 60 days from

today and subject to the further order, if any, passed in the meanwhile.

V.K. JAIN, J MAY 14, 2013 BG