Delhi High Court
Chandgi Decd. Thru Lrs vs Uoi & Anr. on 20 November, 2014
Author: Sunil Gaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: November 20, 2014
(i) + LA.APP. 34/2006
JAGE RAM ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Advocate
versus
UOI & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak,
Advocate for respondent No.1-UOI
Ms. Shobhna Takiar, Advocate for
respondent No.2-DDA
(ii) + LA.APP.35-54/2006
CHANDGI DECD. THR. LRS .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Advocate
versus
UOI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak,
Advocate for respondent No.1-UOI
Ms. Shobhna Takiar, Advocate for
respondent No.2-DDA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
Learned counsel for appellants submits the above captioned two
LA.APP No.34/2006 Page 1
LA.APP No.35-54/2006
appeals are preferred by the two brothers and the findings returned in the
impugned judgments are identical and therefore, these appeals can be
heard together. Accordingly, both these appeals were heard together and
are being disposed of by this common judgment.
The land in question is situated in Village Roshan Pura, which was
acquired vide Notification of 8th August, 1973 under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition Collector had assessed the
market value of the land in question at `22,000/- per bigha with
proportionate solatium etc. Enhancement @`50/- per sq.yards was
sought before the Reference Court, which stands dismissed vide
impugned judgment of 4th October, 2005. The detailed facts of these
cases are already noticed in impugned judgment and needs no
reproduction.
Appellants-claimants had relied upon Sale Deed of 24th January,
1974, whereas the land in question was acquired on 8th August, 1973 and
the finding returned by the learned Reference Court in respect of the
aforesaid Sale Deed is as under:-
„The Sale deed filed on record will not provide any
benefit to both the parties for the reasons firstly that these have
not been proved on record as per law. Secondly, sale deed filed
by petitioner is dated 24.1.1974 whereas the land was acquired
in the present case on 8.8.73. Thus sale deed is for the
subsequent period and does not depict the actual value as on
the date of notification of thee present case. The third reason
for discarding these sale deeds are that situation of particular
land plays an important role in fetching the value of it. For
LA.APP No.34/2006 Page 2
LA.APP No.35-54/2006
example, if the land is situated just near the metal led road on a
developed place it may fetch more value than the land which is
situated far away from the metal led road and near the less
developed are. In the present case no evidence has been
adduced to prove the existence of favourable factors to fetch
more value of the land in dispute.
In view of the reasons mentioned herein above, it is held
that petitioner could not establish on record that market value
as on the date of notification for acquisition of land was more
than what the Land Acquisition Collector assessed in his
award. Therefore, it is held that the petitioner ids not entitled
for enhancement of compensation and accordingly, this issue is
decided in favour of the respondents and against the
petitioner."
It would be pertinent to note that no oral evidence was led by the
parties except that appellants-claimants had placed on record certified
copy of Sale Deed of 24th January, 1974, which pertains to 4 bighas & 16
biswas of land in the same revenue estate. To seek the location of the
land of the Sale Deed and the acquired land, the site plan/ aks sirza is
required to be looked into.
At the hearing of these two appeals, it was submitted by learned
counsel for appellants that the learned Reference Court has held that the
registered Sale Deed is per se admissible in evidence. Learned counsel for
respondent points out that the vicinity of the Sale Deed in question vis-à-
vis the acquired land is to be seen.
Attention of this Court is drawn to the certified copy of the
LA.APP No.34/2006 Page 3
LA.APP No.35-54/2006
aforesaid Sale Deed to point out that the location of land in the Sale Deed
is Chhawla, Gurgaon Road, near Najafgarh, Delhi. It was also pointed
out that it is evident from the Award of the Land Acquisition Collector
(EX. R-1) that the acquired land is situated on one side of Najafgarh,
Chhawla Road, Delhi.
At this stage, learned counsel for first respondent submits that the
exact location of the acquired land vis-à-vis land which is subject matter
of the Sale Deed in question is not at all clear. It is pertinent to note here
that the acquired land measures 13 bigas and 18 biswas and that the land
in question was for a public purpose i.e. for construction of S.D.O.
Office.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for first respondent
submits that in the Award of Land Acquisition Collector (Ex.-R-1), six
comparable sale instances have been considered and thereafter only
market value of the acquired land has been assessed, which is quite
reasonable. Learned counsel for first respondent points out that Land
Acquisition Collector, in the Award in question has relied upon the Sale
Deed of 22nd July, 1971, which was of 11 bigas & 10 biswas and its
market value was assessed at `23,000/- . It was submitted by appellant's
counsel that the appellants' acquired land was on the main road and so
was better located than the land of those sale instances relied upon by the
Land Acquisition Collector. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, learned Counsel
for first respondent, relies upon Apex Court decision in Special Land
Acquisition Officer Vs. Maharani Biswal & ors. (2011) 12 SCC 324,
which reads as under:-
"16... Since the High Court has not considered the oral
LA.APP No.34/2006 Page 4
LA.APP No.35-54/2006
evidence and also not properly analysed the documentary
evidence available on record, the judgment an order passed by
the High Court cannot be sustained and has to be interfered
with. This is also because of the fact that High Court
proceeded on a wrong notion that the sale deed of tiny pieces of
land could be the determining factor as the land acquired in the
present case is Ac.4.98 decimals as against the sale deeds by
which not even 1 decimal of land was sold. There is total
misleading of the evidence on record and also misinterpretation
of the legal proposition settled by this Court."
The settled legal position governing the assessment of
compensation in respect of acquired lands, which holds good even today,
is as follows:-
(i) Apex Court in the case of Adusumilli Gopala Krishna Vs.
Spl. Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) AIR 1980 SC 1870
has held that an assessment of compensation payable for
land acquired must take into account several factors,
including the nature of the land, its present use and its
capacity for a higher potential, its precise location in relation
to adjoining land, the use to which neighbouring land has
been put and the impact of such use on the land acquired and
so on.
(ii) Apex Court in the case of Suresh Kumar, Appellant Vs.
Town Improvement Trust, Bhopal, AIR 1989 SC 1222, has
observed that in estimating the market value of the land, the
LA.APP No.34/2006 Page 5
LA.APP No.35-54/2006
proper principle is to ascertain the market value of the land
taking into consideration the special value which ought to be
attached to the special advantage possessed by the land
namely, its proximity to developed urbanized areas.
After having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of
the record of this case and by applying the afore-noted parameters
governing the assessment of compensation, I find that merely because
there is one line in the Award that the acquired land is on Najafgarh
Chhawla Road, it would not per se mean that it is abutting the Chhawla
Gurgaon Road. The location of the relied upon Sale Deed vis-à-vis the
acquired land is also not clear nor it is disclosed by either side that at
what distance is the acquired land from the land relied upon in the sale
exemplars. In the absence of aks sirza, it would be hazardous to make
any guess, particularly when the relied upon sale instances pertain to a
comparatively larger chunk of land when compared with the acquired
land and so, in the considered opinion of this Court, there is no illegality
or infirmity in the impugned judgment.
Thus, while upholding the impugned judgments, these appeals are
dismissed with no order as to costs.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 20, 2014
r
LA.APP No.34/2006 Page 6
LA.APP No.35-54/2006
