Delhi High Court
Hari Chand Thru L.Rs vs Uoi on 29 May, 2013
Author: V. K. Jain
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on : 21.05.2013
Judgment pronounced on : 29.05.2013
+ LA.APP. 127/2004
HARI CHAND THRU L.R'S
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Satpal Singh, Adv.
versus
UOI
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Ms. K.
Kaomudi Kiran Pathak, advs. for R-
1/UOI /LAC
Mr. Pawan Mathur, Adv. for DDA
+ LA.APP. 128/2004
HARI CHAND
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Satpal Singh, Adv.
versus
UOI
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Ms. K.
Kaomudi Kiran Pathak, advs. for R-
1/UOI /LAC
Mr. Pawan Mathur, Adv. for DDA
+ LA.APP. 129/2004
SIRYA
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Satpal Singh, Adv.
versus
UOI
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Ms. K.
Kaomudi Kiran Pathak, advs. for R-
1/UOI /LAC
Mr. Pawan Mathur, Adv. for DDA
+ LA.APP. 192/2004
LA Appeal No. 163/2007 & connected matters Page 1 of 24
JAGMAL(DECD.)THR.LR'S
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Satish Kumar Verma, Adv.
versus
UOI & ANR
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Ms. K.
Kaomudi Kiran Pathak, advs. for R-
1/UOI /LAC
Mr. Pawan Mathur, Adv. for DDA
+ LA.APP. 193/2004
CHANDER MAL & ORS.
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Satish Kumar Verma, Adv.
versus
UOI & ANR.
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Ms. K.
Kaomudi Kiran Pathak, advs. for R-
1/UOI /LAC
Mr. Pawan Mathur, Adv. for DDA
+ LA.APP. 156/2007
VINOD KUMAR & ORS.
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Deepak Khosla, Mr. Inder Singh
and Mr. J.P. Verma, Advs.
versus
UOI & ANR.
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Ms. K.
Kaomudi Kiran Pathak, advs. for R-
1/UOI /LAC
Mr. Pawan Mathur, Adv. for DDA
+ LA.APP. 157/2007
BHULE RAM
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Deepak Khosla, Mr. Inder Singh
and Mr. J.P. Verma, Advs.
LA Appeal No. 163/2007 & connected matters Page 2 of 24
versus
UOI &ANR.
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Ms. K.
Kaomudi Kiran Pathak, advs. for R-
1/UOI /LAC
Mr. Pawan Mathur, Adv. for DDA
+ LA.APP. 160/2007
CHANDER MAL & ORS
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Satish Kumar Verma, Adv.
versus
U.O.I & ANR
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Ms. K.
Kaomudi Kiran Pathak, advs. for R-
1/UOI /LAC
Mr. Pawan Mathur, Adv. for DDA
+ LA.APP. 162/2007
MAHENDER SINGH
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Deepak Khosla, Mr. Inder Singh
and Mr. J.P. Verma, Advs.
versus
UOI & ANR
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Ms. K.
Kaomudi Kiran Pathak, advs. for R-
1/UOI /LAC
Mr. Pawan Mathur, Adv. for DDA
+ LA.APP. 163/2007
SHIV CAHRAN
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Deepak Khosla, Mr. Inder Singh
and Mr. J.P. Verma, Advs.
versus
UOI & ANR
LA Appeal No. 163/2007 & connected matters Page 3 of 24
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Ms. K.
Kaomudi Kiran Pathak, advs. for R-
1/UOI /LAC
Mr. Pawan Mathur, Adv. for DDA
+ LA.APP. 171/2007
BISHAMBER DAYAL & ORS.
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Deepak Khosla, Mr. Inder Singh
and Mr. J.P. Verma, Advs.
versus
UOI & ANR
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Ms. K.
Kaomudi Kiran Pathak, advs. for R-
1/UOI /LAC
Mr. Pawan Mathur, Adv. for DDA
+ LA.APP. 198/2007
HARI CHAND
..... Appellant
Through: Mr Satpal Singh
versus
UOI & ANR.
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Ms. K.
Kaomudi Kiran Pathak, advs. for R-
1/UOI /LAC
Mr. Bankey Bihari Sharma with Mr.
Mahendra Kumar, Advs. for DDA
+ LA.APP. 199/2007
SIRIYA
..... Appellant
Through: Mr Satpal Singh
versus
UOI & ANR.
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Ms. K.
Kaomudi Kiran Pathak, advs. for R-
LA Appeal No. 163/2007 & connected matters Page 4 of 24
1/UOI /LAC Mr. Bankey Bihari
Sharma with Mr. Mahendra Kumar,
Advs. for DDA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
V.K. JAIN, J.
The land of the appellants before this Court, in Village Aali, was
notified under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act vide notification dated
06.04.1964. The compensation in respect of the aforesaid land was
determined vide Award No. 3/97-98 Supplementary. The Land
Acquisition Collector awarded compensation to the appellants at the rate
of 12000/- per bigha following the order of the learned Additional
District Judge in LAC No. 112/93, Sumitra Devi v. Union of India,
where the land in the same village was acquired vide same notification
dated 06.04.1964.
2. Being aggrieved from the compensation awarded by LAC, the
appellants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. On such
reference being made, the learned Additional District Judge held that no
enhancement of compensation awarded by LAC was called for. While
rejecting the reference, the learned Additional District Judge applied the
compensation of Rs.17,000/- per bigha fixed by this Court in respect of
the land notified in the same village i.e.0 Village Aali on 12.6.1969 and
after depreciating the value as assessed on 12.6.1969, he determined the
market value @ Rs.12,000/- per bigha, as on 6.4.1964. He also took note
of the fact that in another RFA, this Court had determined the
compensation in respect of adjoining village Badapur @ Rs.12,000/- per
bigha in respect of the land notified on 6.4.1964. He, however, directed
that they shall be entitled to interest under Section 34 of the Act from the
date of possession of the land till the date of payment of the
compensation. He also held that the appellants shall also be entitled to
interest on solatium and additional amounts in terms of the decision of
Supreme Court in Sunder vs. Union of India DLT 2001 (SC) 569. Being
aggrieved from the learned Additional District Judge, the appellants are
before us.
3. The compensation, to which a land owner whose land is acquired
by the Government is entitled, is the price which a willing seller could
reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser, at the time the said
land was notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The
purchaser, while purchasing a property would take into consideration not
only the existing use to which the land sought to be purchased by him is
put, but also its potential in terms of use to which it can reasonably be
expected to be put immediately or near future. Therefore, the valuation
needs to take into consideration not only the condition of the land as on
the date of the notification, but also its potential value. Of course,
considering the mandate of clause 4(4) of Section 24 of the Land
Acquisition Act, any increase to the value of land, likely to accrue from
the use to which it will be put when acquired needs to be excluded from
consideration. As stated by Supreme Court in P. Ram Reddy and Ors.
Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development
Authority, Hyderabad and Ors. (1995) 2 SCC 305, such possibility of
user of the acquired land for a different purpose can never by wholly a
matter of conjecture or surmise or guess and should be a matter of
inference to be drawn based on appreciation of material placed on record
to establish such possibility. As observed by the Apex Court in the said
judgment, such material must necessarily relates to matters such as:
(i) the situation of the acquired land vis-a-vis the city or the town or
village which had been growing in size because of its commercial,
industrial, educational, religious or any other kind of importance or
because of its explosive population
(ii) the suitability of the acquired land for putting up the buildings, be
they residential, commercial or industrial, as the case may be;
(iii) possibility of obtaining water and electric supply for occupants of
buildings to be put up on that land;
(iv) absence of statutory impediments or the like for using the acquired
land for building purpose;
(v) existence of highways, public roads, layouts of building plots or
developed residential extensions in the vicinity or close proximity of the
acquired land;
(vi) benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health care centers,
or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land which may
become available to the occupiers of buildings, if built on the acquired
land; and
(vii) lands around the acquired land or the acquired land itself being in
demand for building purposes, to specify a few.
The material so placed on record cannot have needed evidentiary
value, unless supported by reliable documentary evidence as far as the
circumstance permit. In case the land owner brings on record such an
evidence, the market value of the acquired land comprises the value
having regard to the use to which it was put on the date of notification,
plus the increase in the said value on account of possibility of being used
for other purposes such as buildings being constructed thereupon.
4. It was observed by Supreme Court in Tribeni Devi and Ors. v.
Collector of Ranchi AIR 1972 SC 1417, the sale deeds of the lands
situated in the vicinity and the comparable benefits and advantages which
they have furnish a rough and ready method of computing the market
value though this is not the only method of computing the market value,
other methods being rent which the owner was actually receiving at the
relevant point of time or the rent which the neighbouring lands of similar
nature were fetching by capitalizing the said rent according to the
prevailing rate of interest, opinion of experts, and agriculture yield basis
method, i.e. yield of the acquired land with reference to revenue records
and keeping in mind the potential and nature of the land - wet (irrigated),
dry and barren (banjar). Normally, where the compensation is awarded
on agricultural yield or capitalization method basis, the principle of
multiplier is also applied for final determination.
However, the first method, i.e., computation of market value based upon
the sale deeds of the lands situated in the vicinity by far remains the best
method for the purpose of computation of the compensation payable to
the land owners.
5. As held by the Supreme Court in Panna Lal Ghosh and others
versus LAC and others [(2004) 1 SCC 467], the most reliable way of
determine the market value is to rely on the instances of sale of portion of
the same land as has been acquired or adjacent land made shortly before
or after the Section 4 notification. The judgments and awards passed in
respect of acquisition of land made in the same village and/or
neighbouring village in respect of the land notified on or around the time
land in question was notified also would be an admissible evidence for
the purpose of determining the compensation. As observed by Supreme
Court in Union of India (UOI) v. Pramod Gupta (D) by L.Rs. and
Ors. (2005) 12 SCC 1, such a judgment and award in the absence of any
other evidence like the deed of sale, report of expert and other relevant
evidence would have only evidentiary value.
It is also settled principle of law that despite Union of India being
party to an award of judgment, the principle of res judicata would not
apply unless the award or judgment is inter se between the parties. As
held by Supreme Court in Union of India (UOI) v. Pramod Gupta (D)
by L.Rs. and Ors. (2005) 12 SCC 1, even if the Union of India has not
preferred any appeal against a judgment and award, it would not be
estopped and precluded from resisting the claim in a different proceeding.
The same view was taken by the Apex Court in Government of West
Bengal v. Tarun K. Roy (2004) 1 SCC 347 and State of Bihar v. Ramdeo
Yadav (1996) 3 SCC 493.
6. As held by Supreme Court in Kanwar Singh and Others vs. Union
of India (1998) 8 SCC 136, it is for the claimants to prove and
demonstrate that the compensation offered by the Collection is not
adequate and the same does not reflect the true market value of the land
on the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. This, according
to the Apex Court, could only be done by the claimants by adducing
evidence to the effect that on the relevant date, the market value of the
land was in question was such at which the vendor and the vendee were
willing to sell or purchase the land. The question whether the
compensation offered to the land owner reflects correct market value of
the land on the date of notification or not, has to be determined on the
basis of the evidence produced before the Court. This principle of law
was reiterated by Supreme Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer vs.
Karigowda and Others, Civil Appeal No. 3838 of 2010, when the Court
observed that the onus primarily is on the claimant, which they can
discharge while placing and proving on record sale instances and/or such
other evidences as they deem proper, keeping in mind the method of
computation for awarding of compensation which they rely upon.
This principle was reiterated by Supreme Court even in the case
of Gafar v. Moradabad Development Authority [(2007) 7 SCC 614] and
the Court held as under:
"As held by this Court in various decisions, the burden is
on the claimants to establish that the amounts awarded to
them by the Land Acquisition Officer are inadequate and
that they are entitled to more. That burden had to be
discharged by the claimants and only if the initial burden
in that behalf was discharged, the burden shifted to the
State to justify the award."
7. The following, in my view, are the broad methods to determine the
market value of the acquired land on the date of notification under
Section 4 of the Act.
(a) If evidence of bonafide and genuine sale transaction in respect of
the acquired land or adjoining similarly situated land in the same village,
transacted nearabout the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act are not available, the Court would be justified in looking
for awards/ judgments in respect of the adjoining similarly situated land
in the same village, which was notified nearabout the same time when the
land in question was notified.
(b) If neither such sale instances nor such awards/ judgments are
available, the Court would be justified in relying upon the genuine and
bonafide sale transactions in respect of the similarly situated land in
adjoining villages provided such transactions took place on or about the
time the land in question came to be notified. If such sale instances are
not available, the Court would be justified in relying upon the
awards/judgments in respect of the land which is similarly situated and
was notified on or around the time the land in question was notified.
(c) If there is time lag of more than 4-5 years between the transactions
evidenced by the sale deeds produced before the Court and the date on
which land in question was notified, the Court may not be justified in
relying upon such transactions. Similarly, if the land in an adjoining
village, which was subject matter of an award or decision was notified
more than four or five years before the land in question came to be
notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, it would not be
appropriate to rely upon such awards/judgments.
(d) Even if the sale transactions were entered into on or around the
time the land in question came to be notified, the person relying upon
such sale transactions needs to further establish that the land subject
matter of those transactions was similar in situation and potentiality etc to
the land in question, at the time it came to be notified under Section 4 of
the Act. Similarly, where the reliance is placed upon the award of
judgment, it has to be shown that the land subject matter of such an
award/ judgment was similar in situation and potential to the land in
respect of which the Court is called upon to determine the compensation.
(e) In case reliance is placed upon the awards/judgments in
respect of the land in adjoining or nearby village, it has to be shown that
such an award or judgment was based upon the evidence of sale instances
in that village and was not based upon the award/ judgment given in
respect of the land comprised in some other village. If, for example, while
determining the compensation in respect of the land situated in Village
'A', reliance is placed upon the award/ judgment fixing compensation in
respect of the land situated in village 'B', it has to be shown by the person
relying upon such a judgment/ award that the said award/ judgment was
based upon the sale instances of village 'B' entered into on or about the
time the land in question in village 'A' was notified. If, however, the
award/ judgment in respect of the land in village 'B' was based upon the
award/ judgment in respect of the land situated in village 'C', it would not
be appropriate to rely upon the award in respect of the land situated in
village 'B' unless it is shown to the Court that the land in village 'C' was
also adjacent to or adjoining village 'A' was similarly situated and had
similar potential. Taking any other view would amount to using the sale
instances of village 'C' for the purpose of determining compensation of
the land situated in village 'A', though village 'C' may not be adjoining
or adjacent to village 'A'. To take an example, if the Court is required to
determine compensation in respect of the land situated in village 'A' and
the award/ judgment relied upon before it is in respect of land situated in
adjoining village 'B' but the award /judgment given in respect of land in
village 'B' is based upon the award/judgment given in respect of the land
situated in village 'C', which is say at a distance of 3 kms from village
'A', the compensation fixed in respect of the land situated in village 'C'
is based upon the compensation fixed for the land in adjoining village
'D', which is at a distance of say 6 kms from village 'A'., accepting such
an award/judgment for determining compensation in respect of the land
situated in village 'A' would amount to treating the land in village 'A' at
par with the land in village 'D' though village 'D' is situated at a distance
of 6 kms from village 'A'. It is this kind of comparison which the
Supreme Court has disapproved in Kanwar Singh(supra). In that case,
the contention of the appellant before the Court was that for their land in
Rangpuri, they should be awarded the same compensation as awarded to
the land owners of village Masoodpur and Mahipalpur. Rejecting the
contention, the Apex Court, inter alia, held as under:-
"If we go by the compensation awarded to
claimants of adjoining village it would not lead to
the correct assessment of market value of the land
acquired in the village Rangpuri. For example
village 'A' adjoins village 'B', village B adjoins
village 'C, village 'C adjoins village 'D', so on and
so form and in that process the entire Delhi would
be covered. Generally there would be different
situation and potentiality of the land situated in
two different villages unless it is proved that the
situation and potentiality of the land in two
different villages are the same."
8. The learned Additional District Judge has referred to the judgment
passed in LAC 112/1993, Sumitra Devi versus Union of India pertaining
to Award No.206/1986-87 of Village Aali in respect of the land notified
under Section 4 of the Act on 6.4.1964 determining the compensation @
Rs.12,000/- per bigha. He noted that the aforesaid judgment, in turn, was
based upon the decision of this Court in RFA titled as Ranjit versus
Union of India RFA No. 10 of 1972, decided on 29.08.1984, in respect
of land notified in Village Badarpur fixing compensation for the land
notified in the said village on 6.4.1964.
In Jagmal vs. Union of India, RFA No. 383 of 1976, decided on
09.01.1985, this Court determined the compensation in respect of the land
in village Aaali notified on 12.06.1969 at Rs 17,000/- per bigha. In
Union of India vs. Lekhi 1992 (47) DLT 19, this court determined
compensation at Rs 17,000/- per bigha in respect of the land in village
Aali notified on 06.01.1969.
The appellants before this Court have not placed on record any sale
deed executed in village Aali on or around 06.04.1964 or within a span of
4-5 years before or after the said date. They have not placed on record
any award or judgment in respect of the land notified in village Aali on or
around 06.04.1964 or within a span of 4-5 years before or after the said
date. The appellants have not placed on record any sale deed of a village
adjoining village Aali executed on or after 06.04.1964 or within a period
of 4-5 years before or after the said date. Similarly, they have not placed
on record any award or judgment in respect of land notified in an
adjoining village on or around 06.04.1964 of within a span of 4-5 years
before or after the said date. In these circumstances, the compensation
determined by this Court in respect of the land notified in this very
village in the year 1969 becomes a relevant evidence which can be used
for determining compensation in respect of the land in question after
making requisite adjustment for the time lag between 06.04.1964 and the
date of notification in the year 1969.
9. The case of the appellants before this Court is based primarily upon
the decision of this Court in Babu Lal vs. Union of India, RFA No.
7/1988, decided on 29.05.1988, whereby the market value of the land
notified in village Jasola on 06.04.1964 was determined at Rs 28,000/-
per bigha. In my view, no reliance on the said judgment can be placed
primarily for two reasons. The first reason which dissuades me from
relying upon this judgment is that it is not based upon any sale transaction
in village Jasola, but is based solely upon the compensation determined
by this Court in respect of land in another village called Bahpur. This is
nobody's case that village Bahpur is adjoining, adjacent or even nearby
village Aali. Therefore, applying the said judgment to this case would
amount to determining the compensation of the land situated in village
Aali on the basis of the value of land situated in village Bahpur which is
quite far away from village Aali. It is this kind of determination of land
value which has been expressly rejected by Supreme Court in Kanwar
Singh (supra).
The second reason why the decision in Babu Lal (supra) cannot be
applied to this case is that there is no evidence of village Jasola being
adjacent to or adjoining village Aali. As held by Supreme Court in
Kanwar Singh (supra), Karigowda (supra) and Gafar (supra), it is for the
claimant to adduce evidence to prove the market value of the land in
question on the relevant date, in case he is not satisfied with the
compensation offered by the Land Acquisition Collector to him.
As held by Supreme Court in Panna Lal Ghosh (supra), for the
purpose of determining the market value of the acquired land, the land
sought to be compared must be similar in potentiality and nature.
Therefore, it was for the appellants to prove that i) the land acquired in
village Jasola, compensation for which was fixed by this Court in the case
of Babu Lal (supra) was similar in potentiality and nature to the land in
question in village Aali at the time it was notified on 06.04.1964. A
perusal of the deposition of Ashok Kumar, Halqa Patwari would show
that the village Jasola does not touch village Aali at any point and the
distance between village Aali and village Jasola is about 3 kilometre. His
deposition also shows that though some land of village Aali may be
touching the main Mathura Road, the acquired land subject matter of
compensation in this case is situated at a distance of 3 kilometre from
Mathura Road and no development had taken place in the area of village
Aali. He has also stated that the land which has been developed in village
Jasola for residential cum commercial purposes is at considerable
distance from the acquired land, which is far away from the main road.
The only similarity in the land of village Aali and the land of village
Jasola, according to this witness, is that both of them are used for
agriculture purpose. According to this witness, village Madanpur Khadar
is on the northern side of village Aali, village Jaitpur is on its southern
side, it touches villages Tehkhand on western side and on the eastern side
it touches the embankment of river Yamuna and land belonging to U.P.
Government. A perusal of the plan issued by the Government at the time
of Administrative Decision of Delhi, a copy of which has been placed on
record by the learned counsel for the respondents would show that village
Ali touches village Madanpur Khadar, village Jaitpur and village
Molarband. Some part of village Aali also touches village Badarpur and
a small part of village touches Saidabad. Therefore, it is only village
Madanpur Khadar, village Jaitpur and village Molarband which are really
adjacent to village Aali though the boundaries of village Saidabad and
village Badarpur touch the boundaries of village Aali. No sale deed
executed in village Madanpur Khadar, Jaitpur, Saidabad, Badarpur or
Molarband, on or about 06.04.1964 or within a span of 4-5 years from
that date has been produced by the petitioners. No award or judgment in
respect of the land notified in any of these villages on or about
06.04.1964 or within 4-5 years from that date has been filed by them. On
the other hand, as noted by the learned Additional District Judge this
Court in the case of Ranjit vs. Union of India determined compensation
in respect of village Badarpur at Rs 12,000/- per bigha for the land
notified on 06.04.1964. In Union of India vs. Bharat Singh, RFA No.
254/1978, this Court determined the market value of the land notified in
village Molarband on 06.04.1964 at Rs 12,000/- per bigha. In RFA No.
413 of 1977, Union of India vs. Debi Ram, decided on 09.12.1991, this
Court determined the market value of the land notified on 06.01.1969 in
village Aali at Rs 17,000/- per bigha.
10. A parity with village Jasola was expressly rejected by this Court in
Bhule Ram vs. Union of India 170 (2010) DLT 371, taking the following
view:
"29. The submission of the counsel for the
appellants that the site plan reflects that acquired
land in village Aali was surrounded by Mohan Co-
operative Society, Indraprastha Apollo Hospital,
Jasola Sports Complex and Jasola Vihar, is
contrary to the records. The aforesaid locations
mentioned by the counsel for the appellants are
about 6-7 kms. away from the acquired land. The
distance between Mathura Road and the acquired
land at village Aali is also admittedly about 6 kms.
30. The aforesaid position is also borne out from a
perusal of the Eicher map, which reflects the
topography of the area, and over which there
is no dispute. Village Aali is bounded by village
Madanpur Khadar towards the north and Badarpur
to its south. On its east is the Agra Canal and on its
west runs Mathura Road. On the other side of
Mathura Road is Mohan Cooperative Industrial
Area and the outlet of M/s Haldiram, which fall in
village Tehkhand. The site plan relied upon by the
counsel for the appellants itself reflects that the
acquired land is situated quite far away from
Mohan Cooperative Society. Indraprastha Apollo
Hospital, Jasola Sports Complex and Jasola Vihar
form a part of village Jasola and adjoining to
village Jasola is village Madanpur Khadar,
whereafter towards it's south, comes village Aali."
11. Thus, irrespective of whether I apply the decision of this Court in
respect of land notified in village Molarband, which is adjacent to village
Aali, as on 06.04.1964 or I apply the decision of this Court in Ranjit
(supra), determining the market value of the land notified in village
Badarpur which also is a village adjacent to village Aali or I apply the
decisions of this Court in respect of land notified in village Aali itself in
the year 1969, the market value of land in village Aali as on 06.04.1964
cannot be said to be more than Rs 12,000/- per bigha.
12. The learned counsel for appellants has referred to Nand Ram &
Ors. versus State of Haryana 1988 (4) SC 260; Desho Dass versus UOI
45(1991) DLT 20(DB); Mangtoo vs. UOI 78(1999) DLT, Sant Singh vs.
U.O.I., RFA No. 690/1988, Ram Lal vs. UOI, RFA No. 230/1983, Om
Prakash vs. UOI, RFA No. 128/1982, Babu Ram Sharma vs. UOI, RFA
No. 259/1994, Mohar Singh vs. UOI 90 (2001) DLT 416 (DB), The
Special Land Acquisition Officer vs. Narayanana Swaroop, Civil
Appeal No. 6667-85/1983, Hari Chand vs. UOI 2002 V AD (Delhi) 803,
Chandan vs. UOI 48(1992) DLT 202 (DB), Smt. Laxmi Bai vs. UOI 94
(2001) DLT 881 (DB), Bed Ram vs. UOI, LA Appeal No. 59/2007, UOI
vs. Khazan Singh, LA Appeal No. 613/2008, Thakarsibhai Devjibhai
and Ors vs. Executive Enginner, Gujarat, AIR 2001 SC 2424, G. Prema
vs Special Tehsildar, 2010 V AD (SC) 510 and Om Prakash vs. State of
Haryana, SLP No. 9743 of 2010
However, considering that neither village Jasola is adjacent or even
nearby to village Aali nor have the appellants produced any evidence to
independently prove that the market value of the land in village Aali was
at par with the market value of the land in village Jasola as on
06.04.1964, none of these judgments is of any help to the appellants.
13. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no ground for
enhancement of the compensation determined by the learned Additional
District Judge. The appeals are devoid of any merit and are hereby
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
V.K.JAIN, J
MAY 29, 2013
BG/RD
