Delhi High Court
Randhir Singh And Ors vs Union Of India & Anr. on 24 October, 2024
Author: Sudhir Kumar Jain
Bench: Sudhir Kumar Jain
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: September 17, 2024
Decided on: October 24, 2024
+ LA.APP. 265/2024
RANDHIR SINGH AND OTHERS .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Senior
Advocate with Ms. Ruchira
Arora and Mr. R. S. Dalal,
Advocates
V
UNION OF INDIA& ANOTHER .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kr. Pathak, SC
with Mrs. K. K. Kiron
Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kr. Jha,
Mr. M. S. Akhtar,
Mr. Mayank Arora, Mr.
Mayank Madhu, Advocates
for UOI
Ms.Arti Bansal, Advocate
CORAM
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is filed under section 54 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") to
challenge the judgment and decree dated 21.11.2023 passed in LAC
Signing Date:29.10.2024 LA.APP 265/2024 Page 1
bearing no. 19/2016 titled as Randhir Singh & others V Union of
India & another, (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned
judgment") by the court of Sh. Gagandeep Jindal, ADJ-1 + MACT,
North West District, Rohini Courts Delhi (hereinafter referred to as
"the reference court").
2.The factual background of the case as reflected from impugned
judgment is that Hon'ble Lt. Governor of Delhi vide notification
bearing No. F.11(1)/L&B/LA/3831 dated 04.06.2004 issued under
section 4 of the Act intended to acquire about 72 bigha 01 biswa of
land with specification mentioned in the notification for public
purpose namely "Rohini Residential Scheme" under the "Planned
Development of Delhi". Thereafter, vide Declaration/Notification no.
F.11 (1)/L&B/LA/2626 dated 03.06.2005 issued under section 6 of
the Act, 72 bigha 01 biswa land (as detailed in the statement under
Section 19 of the Act) situated in the revenue estate of village Pooth
Kalan, Delhi was acquired by the Government. Land Acquisition
Collector(NW) ( hereinafter referred to as "LAC") after completing
the requisite formalities as provided under the Act announced the
Award bearing no.04/2006-07 dated 20.10.2006 under section 11 of
Signing Date:29.10.2024 LA.APP 265/2024 Page 2
the Act in respect of 72bigha 01biswa out of the aforesaid acquired
land and awarded a compensation at the uniform rate of
Rs.15,70,000/- per acre (or Rs. 3,27,083.33/- per bigha) for the entire
acquired land in addition to other statutory benefits and interests.
2.1The appellants were co-owners/co-bhoomidhars of agricultural
land comprised in Khasra no. 27//16 Min (4-10), 17(4-16), 18(4-
16),1//7/1 (0-05), 13//21 Min (3-00) and 22 min (4-00) total area
admeasuring 21 bigha and 07 biswa situated in the revenue estate of
Village Pooth Kalan, Delhi which was acquired vide Award no.
04/2006-07/DC(NW) dated 20.10.2006.
2.2 The petitioner in reference petition under section 18 of the Act
challenged the Award on the grounds which are as under:-
i. The Award was announced by ignoring the objections of
the appellants under Section 5A of the Act stating that the
land in question isa built-up consisting of 40 rooms and that
there is a boundary wallaround the land in question
alongwith many trees on said land. The award is completely
silent regarding the built-up structures.The land in
question has not been properly valued for compensation
amount to be paid to the appellantsby LAC. The
compensation awarded by the LAC is highly inadequate as
per the prevailing market price.
ii. LAC has failed to consider that the land of the
appellantsis situated in the middle of fully developed
residential colony namelyRohini Residential Scheme
Signing Date:29.10.2024 LA.APP 265/2024 Page 3
developed by DDA. The acquired land of the appellants
falls in sector-23 of residential scheme and is situated near
the 40 meters wide main road and also leads to NH-1. The
Secior-23 is duly developed. The DDA has auctioned the
land in the year 2002-03 @ Rs. 10,000/- per sq.yards
approximately. LAC has failed to assess the true and
correct market value of the land in question.
iii) LAC has assessed the market value of the land by
treating the as agricultural land and the market value has
been assessed in terms of administrative instructions/
circular whereas the land of the appellants was not
agricultural land in any manner asthe land was fully
surrounded by developed land and had all the potentialities
of being used for residential/ commercial purposes.
iv. The market value of the land is not less than Rs. 5 crores
per acre on the date of notification under section 4 of the
Act and has been notified for RohiniResidential Scheme,
Phase-III under Planned Development of Delhi. The land
has commercial use and value.
v. DDAhas allotted flats, residential plots, commercial sites
which were developed by the DDA contractors and sold by
the DDA at very high prices. The land of the appellants is
situated near to the commercial sites, flats and residential
plots. The land has fullpotential value and can be used for
any purpose as desired byDDA.
vi. The appellants prayed for grant of compensation at rate
of Rs. 10,000/- per sq. meter in respect of acquired land, Rs.
1,00,000/- per room in respect of the built up area and @
Rs. 10,00,000/- in respect of the 25 trees on the acquired
land of the appellants as per the prevailing market price of
the acquired land along with other statutory benefits
including interest, solatium etc. inaccordance with law.
Signing Date:29.10.2024 LA.APP 265/2024 Page 4
3. The respondent no 1/Union of India filed written statement before
the reference court. The respondent no 1 stated that the notification
under section 4 was issued on 04.06.2004 and the declaration under
section 6 of the Act was issued on 03.06.2005 and the land was
acquired for the public purposes i.e. for "Rohini Residential Scheme
Phase II under Planned Development of Delhi". LAC has rightly
assessed the market value of land keeping in view all the aspects and
has assessed the market value after considering the level of
development, locality and situation of the area where the said land is
situated. LAC has assessed the fair market value of the land by
adopting the indicative price fixed by the Government of NCT of
Delhi at the rate of Rs. 15,70,000 per acre for the year 2001- 2002
which is applicable with effect from 01.04.2001 for land falling in
Block A. LAC has rightly assessed the market value of the land
keeping in view the aspects enumerated under sections 23 and 24 of
the Act. The reference petition is misconceived and is liable to be
dismissed. The respondent no 2/DDA did not file written statement
and right to file written statement was ordered to be closed vide order
dated 04.08.2014.
Signing Date:29.10.2024 LA.APP 265/2024 Page 5
4. The reference court on basis of pleadings framed following issues
vide order dated 04.08.2014:-
i. Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement in
compensation, if yes, then to what extent? OPP.
ii. Relief.
5. The appellants before reference court examined Surender Singh as
PW1 who tendered affidavit Ex. PW1/A in evidence. PW1 relied
ondocuments which are photocopies of Award bearing no. 20/85-86
dated 11.11.1985 and Award no. 245/86-87 as Mark A, RTI
applications filed before DDA, LAC and MCD as Mark B, Demand-
cum-Allotment letters dated 04.07.2003, 23.10.2003 and document
showing the list of auctions conducted by the DDA in Rohini
Residential Scheme as Mark C, Award No. 5/2003-04 of Village
Mangol Pur Khurd, Delhi as Mark D, Valuation report of immovable
property bearing Khasra no.27/2/20 (3-12) of village Mangol Pur
Kalan, Delhi as Mark E, certified copy of sale deed bearing
registration no. 11424 dated 08.08.2003 as Ex. PW1/2(colly), RTI
application dated 08.06.2011 seeking information from DDA
regarding Pawan Hans Helicopter Ltd. and other related documents
as Mark F and Map of Budh Vihar Phase-I as Mark G. The appellants
Signing Date:29.10.2024 LA.APP 265/2024 Page 6
also examined Manjeet Singh, Field Kanoongo, from the office of
SDM, Rohini as PW2 who brought copy of Khatoni for the year
1977-1978 and copy of Aks-Sizra of Village Pooth Kalan as Ex. PW
2/1 (OSR) and Ex. PW 2/2 (OSR) respectively; Shiv Shankar, Data
Operator, I.AC, N/W at DC Office, Kanjhawala, Delhi as PW3 who
brought Award no. 20/1985-1986 dated 11.11.1985 regarding village
Pooth Kalan as Ex. PW 3/1 (OSR), Award No. 245/1986-1987 of
Village Pooth Kalan Ex. PW 3/2 (OSR) and Award no. 5/2003-2004,
Village Mangolpur Khurd Ex. PW 3/3 (OSR); Anil Kumar Sharma,
Assistant Section Officer, LAB Residential DDA, Vikas Sadan, INA,
New Delhi as PW4 who brought letter bearing no. F-11(7)/1989/LSB
(r)/6224 dated 04.07.2003 Ex. PW 4/1 (OSR);Vivek Yadav, LDC
from Office of Sub-Registrar- II, Basai Dara Pur, Delhi as PW5 who
brought sale deed dated 21.09.2000 and sale deed dated 08.08.2003,
the certified copy which are Ex. PW 1/2 (OSR)(Colly); K. L.
Jagoree, Assistant Section Officer, Department Commercial Land
Branch, DDA, Vikas Sadan as PW6 who brought Allotment Letter
Ex. PW6/1 regarding auction of commercial plots, perpetual lease
deed, advertisement, possession letter, site possession and other
Signing Date:29.10.2024 LA.APP 265/2024 Page 7
relevant documents as Ex. PW 6/2; Govind Kumar Sharma, Assistant
Section Officer, JA Branch, DDA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi as PW7
who brought complete record Ex. PW7/1(colly) for allotment of land
to Ministry of Civil Aviation, Govt. of India for construction of
Heliport, at Sector-36, Rohini on land measuring area 25 acres and
Raj Pal, Assistant Director, Planning, Rohini, Office of Planning,
Rohini at Madhuban chowk, Delhi as PW8 who brought composite
layout plan of sector -20 to 25, Rohini, Delhi which is Ex. PW8/1.
5.1The respondent no 1/UOI examined Sarita Aggarwal, Advocate as
RW1 who tendered Award bearing no. 04/2006-2007, Village Pooth
Kalan as Ex. RI.
6.The reference court in impugned judgment considered sale deed
Ex. PW1/2 relied on by the appellants pertaining to land situated in
village Hiran Kundna in the proximity of the village Pooth Kalan and
argument advanced by the counsel of the respondent no 1/UOI that
sale deed Ex. PW 1/2 cannot be relied upon to determine the price of
acquired land because the Village Hiran Kundna is located at the
distance of 6-7 km from Village Pooth Kalan and the sale deed relied
upon by the appellants did not reflect true and correct value and
Signing Date:29.10.2024 LA.APP 265/2024 Page 8
thereafter observed that sale deed dated 20.08.2000 Ex. PW 1/2
pertaining to village Hiran Kudna cannot be considered for assessing
the fair market value of the land of the appellant as sale deed Ex.
PW1/2 was executed much prior to the date of notification under
section 4 of the Act and the land mentioned in the sale deed is not in
proximity of the acquired land as situated at distance of more than 07
km. The reference court also relied on Viluben Jhalejar Contractor
V State of Gujarat, (2005) 4 SCC 789 wherein principles were laid
down for determination of market value of land.
6.1The reference court in impugned judgment also considered
arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants that the market value
of the said land should be assessed on the basis of allotment made by
DDA in the adjoining area and the appellants relied on the allotment
letter dated 04.07.2003 Ex. PW 4/1, allotment letter Ex. PW 6/1,
perpetual lease deed Ex. PW 6/2 issued by DDA for allotment of
residential plot in the residential/commercial area of Rohini. The
appellants also relied upon Award no. 20/1985-86 pertaining to
Village Pooth Kalan Ex. PW 3/1; Award no. 245/1986-1987, Village
Pooth Kalan Ex. PW 3/2 and Award no. 5/2003-2004, Village
Signing Date:29.10.2024 LA.APP 265/2024 Page 9
Mangolpur Khurd Ex.PW 3/3 to prove that the surrounding land of
the acquired land had already been acquired way back and developed
by the DDA in Sector 20 to 24, Rohini Residential Scheme. It was
further argued on behalf of the appellants that acquired land is
surrounded with the developed area and the land of the appellants is
fit for development and only the cost of development would be
deducted from the said land allotted by the respondent no 2/DDA at
the time of the notification under section 4 of the Act. The appellants
also argued that the land of the appellants has great potentiality as
there are so many unauthorized colonies existing upon the
agricultural land of the same village which proves the potentiality of
the land in question. The reference court also considered arguments
advanced on behalf of the respondent no 1/UOI that allotment letter
issued by the respondent no 2/DDA are either instances of allotment
or creation of perpetual lease by the government for specific purpose
and hence cannot be compared with the instances of sale of an
undervalued agricultural land acquired for public purpose which
requires lot of development and incurring of very high development
charges. The reference court observed that documents relied on by
Signing Date:29.10.2024 LA.APP 265/2024 Page 10
the appellants are either instances of allotment or creation of a
perpetual lease deed by the government for specific purposes and
cannot be compared with the instances of sale of an under developed
agricultural land acquired for public purpose which requires lot of
development and incurring of very high development charges. The
reference court further observed that allotment or creation of freehold
right cannot be treated as an instance of absolute sale and as such
cannot be compared to market value of the land in case of
agricultural land acquisition by the government. The reference court
after relying on Lal Chand V UOI & another, (2009) 15 SCC 769
has rejected arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants and held
that ratio laid down by the Supreme Court is clear and rejected the
rates fixed by DDA. It was also observed that it is not safe to rely
upon these rates for determination of market value of subject
agricultural land acquired vide notification dated 04.06.2004.
6.2 The reference court also considered reliance placed by the
appellants on Award no. 5/2003-2004 pertaining to Village
Mangolpur Khurd Ex. PW 3/3 for determination of fair market value
of the acquired land and arguments that the Village Mangolpur
Signing Date:29.10.2024 LA.APP 265/2024 Page 11
Khurd touches the boundary of land of the appellants and Village
Mangolpur Khurd was declared urbanized in the year 1982. LAC
vide Award no. 05/2003-2004, Village Mangolpur Khurd fixed the
market value of said village prior to acquisition of land of the
appellants and made observations that scheduled rate for the year
2000 was Rs. 3488/- per sq. yard for Rohini as per rates issued by
Urban Affairs and Development Ministry, Government of India. The
reference court observed that observations made by LAC in Award
no. 05/2003-2004, Village Mangolpur Khurd Ex. PW 3/3 with regard
to the fair market value of the land of the said village are not relevant
to the present case because vide Award Ex PW 3/3, the land
measuring 02 bigha and 03 biswa was only acquired for specific
public purpose i.e. construction of 112 LIG houses in Pocket-A,
Sector II, Rohini, Phase-I, Delhi. The reference court further
observed that the area of the acquired land i.e. 41 bigha 13 biswa in
present case is much larger than the area of the land acquired vide
Award no. 05/2003-2004, village Mangolpur Khurd and the purpose
for acquisition of land vide Award No. 04/2006-2007 Ex. R1 was
Rohini Residential Scheme, phase-I under Planned Development of
Signing Date:29.10.2024 LA.APP 265/2024 Page 12
Delhi and not to construct flats as mentioned in Award No. 05/2003-
2004 Village Mangolpur Khurd. The reference court also referred
cross examination of PW1 wherein he admitted that the 112 flats are
situated at the distance of 2 ½ km from the acquired land in question.
The reference court also considered reliance placed on Award no.
245/86-87 Village Pooth Kalan Ex. PW 3/2 by the appellants
whereby land measuring 849 bigha and 9 biswa was acquired for the
purpose of supplementary drain. The reference court observed that
part land of the appellants bearing Khasra No. 11/7/1 and 11/7/2 was
also acquired vide said Award in the year 1986 and 1987 for the
purpose of construction of supplementary drain and not for
construction of any residential or commercial plot and any land near
the drain has lesser market value than any other suitable land situated
in the same village. The reference court held that the appellants
cannot take any benefit on the ground that part of their land was
acquired for planned development of Delhi. The reference court
further observed that acquired land of the appellants was agricultural
land as PW1 in cross-examination also admitted that no crop was
being cultivated on the acquired land for last number of years prior to
Signing Date:29.10.2024 LA.APP 265/2024 Page 13
the acquisition and he did not take any step to develop the acquired
land and there was no evidence that the acquired land was converted
into residential/commercial land till the date of acquisition. The
reference court held that the market value of the acquired land of the
appellants cannot be determined on the basis of the rates re-
determined by LAC vide award No. 05/2003-2004 of Village
Mangolpur Khurd Ex.PW3/3.
6.3 The reference court while determining compensation of acquired
land primarily placed reliance on Indicative Price Policy announced
by the government. The reference court considered reliance placed by
the respondents on Indicative Price Policy issued by the Government.
The respondents before reference court contented that indicative
prices for the acquired agricultural land has been fixed by the
Government and revised from time to time after consideration of all
the factors by an expert committee and thereby giving a realistic and
well examined amount of Rs.15,70,000/- per acre for the acquired
agricultural land within the National Capital Territory of Delhi. The
reference court also considered contention of the respondent that the
report itself suggests that such revision in prices should be periodic
Signing Date:29.10.2024 LA.APP 265/2024 Page 14
and be done in an interval of 3 years and further contention that
having announced the minimum indicative prices on 09.08.2001
which was effective from 01.04.2001, the next revision shall take
place only in the year 2004 and that to be effective from 01.04.2004
and therefore, the notification of the government acquiring
agricultural land between the period should be covered by the
indicative prices fixed by the government in 2001 only and no
enhancement even by percentage annual increase can be accorded to
the land owners including the appellants. The reference court referred
objective behind fixing of Minimum Indicative Price and observed
that Minimum Indicative Price announced by the Land & Building
Department of Delhi Administration (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) are in
the form of letters issued by the Department thereby fixing the
minimum price/rates of agricultural land for acquisition of land
acquired for public purpose under the Act within the Union Territory
(National Capital Territory of Delhi) with the objective of countering
the variable prices of acquired land announced by LAC mainly on the
basis of exemplar sale deeds and sometime under valuation of the
land for the purpose of registration of Sale Deed which leads to
Signing Date:29.10.2024 LA.APP 265/2024 Page 15
insufficient compensation much below the market price leading to
resistance of acquisition resulting into non-availability of land
available through regular channel. The Minimum Indicative Price
categorized the land in two Categories i.e., land situated in river bed
between the forward bunds and all other agricultural lands. The
reference court also considered that LAC has not considered the
annual escalation factor for the period between the indicative price
policy which was effective from 01.04.2001 and the date of
notification under section 4 of the Act and observed that non
consideration of escalation for the period with effect from 01.04.2001
to date of notification under section 4 of the Act, the market value
assessed by LAC cannot be considered appropriate and the market
value so announced in the Award cannot be called as fair market
value. The reference court after following decision given by this
court in Jai Singh V UOI, 135 (2006) DLT 231 (DB) which was
affirmed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 675 of 2012
titled as Union of India V Jai Singh increased price of the acquired
landat the rate of 11.5% per annum (cumulatively) on minimum
indicative price of Rs15,70,000 per acre and assessed fair market
Signing Date:29.10.2024 LA.APP 265/2024 Page 16
value at Rs. 22,20,897.52/- (round of Rs. 22,20,900/-) per acre
thereby gave enhancement of Rs. 6,50,900/- per acre besides
awarding other statutory benefits. The reference court while
answering reference petition under section 18 of the Act awarded
following reliefs to the appellants:-
(1) Fair Market value of land of petitioner @ Rs.
22,20,900/- per acre. An enhancement of Rs. 6,50,900/- per
acre is accordingly accorded.
(2) Additional amount (@ 12% (in terms of Section 23 (1A)
of the Act).
(3) Solatium @ 30% on the enhanced compensation (in
terms of S.23 (2) of the Act).
(4) Interest @ 9% per annum for the first year and 15%
per annum for the subsequent year till the payment of
enhanced compensation by LAC is made (in terms of
Section 28 of the Act).
7. The appellants being aggrieved filed the present appeal and
challenged impugned judgment on grounds that the impugned
judgment is contrary to the law and facts and is based on surmises
and conjectures. The reference court did not consider potentiality of
acquired land on the basis of development in the surroundings as
there were no instances of sale which are the best method for
assessment of the market value of the acquired land. The reference
court did not appreciate the evidence of PW2 which proved that the
Signing Date:29.10.2024 LA.APP 265/2024 Page 17
acquired land was no more agricultural land but was urbanized land
on the date of notification under section 4 of the Act although in
revenue records continued to be rural land and lands surrounding the
acquired land has already been acquired. The nomenclature of the
land whether it is mention as agriculture, semi urban or urban in the
revenue record does not make any difference as it is the potentiality
which has to be considered. The reference court has not considered
case law cited on behalf of the appellants. The reference court
wrongly discarded the duly proved status of the acquired land as
semiurban land. The reference court has awarded inadequate
compensation. The appellants are legally entitled for the
compensation for the acquired land at rate of Rs.5967/- per square
meter thereby granting an enhancement in compensation to the
appellants for a sum of Rs.3,61,63,987/- over and above the
compensation amount awarded vide the impugned judgment and
decree from the date of notification of acquisition of the land besides
all statutory benefits. The appellants made the following prayer:-
It is therefore, in view of the above circumstances and in
the interest of justice most humbly prayed to this Hon'ble
Court that the present appeal may kindly be allowed and
the impugned judgment & decree dated 21.11.2023
Signing Date:29.10.2024 LA.APP 265/2024 Page 18
corrected/modified vide order dated 01.06.2024 to the
extent of memo of parties, may kindly be modified by
further compensation for the acquired land in question for
a sum of Rs.3,61,65,987/- ( Rupees Three Crores Sixty One
lacs Sixty Five Thousand Nine hundred Eighty Seven Only)
being @ Rs.5967/- per square meter, besides other statutory
benefits on the same, including interest on solatium and the
appellant may further be awarded the cost of appeal.
Any other or further orders, which are deem fit and proper
by Hon'ble Court may also be passed.
8. Sh. Rajesh Yadav, the learned Senior Advocate for the appellants
advanced oral arguments and written synopsis are also submitted on
behalf of the appellants. Sh. Yadav stated that the appellants were
owners of other lands which were acquired vide Awards no 245/86-
87 and 20/85-86 pertaining to Village Pooth Kalan, Delhi for planned
development of Delhi in year 1985, 1986 and 1987 and thereafter, the
government started the allotment and auction of residential and
commercial lands but some of the land was left out from acquisition
which is subject matter of present appeal. It was further stated that
surrounding areas of acquired land got fully developed prior to year
2004. The appellants relied on lease deed executed by DDA for
allotment of residential plots and auction of commercial lands subject
matter of Award bearing nos. 20/85-86 and 245/86-87 prior to the
Signing Date:29.10.2024 LA.APP 265/2024 Page 19
acquisition of land subject matter of present appeal and were proved
by summoning relevant record from DDA. Sh. Yadav referred para
no 7 and 11 of the affidavit tendered by PW1 in evidence and
testimonies of PW2, PW3 and their cross examination. Sh. Yadav
argued that the land of the appellants subject matter of the present
appeal has attained same market value as attained by the land
developed by DDA.
8.1Sh. Yadav also relied on Award no 5/2003-2004 pertaining to
Village Mangolpur Khurd which touches boundary of the Village
Pooth Kalan in south-east direction. Sh. Yadav argued that Village
Mangolpur Khurd has already been declared as urbanized in 1982
and subsequently developed in the Rohini Residential Scheme-I by
DDA and as such rates of agriculture land fixed by the government of
Delhi and as claimed by DDA cannot be applicable. The market
value of the land was assessed @ Rs. 3,180 per square meter. Sh.
Yadav during arguments also referred Balwant Singh v UOI, LA
Appeal no 62/2013 decided on 11.01.2016 by High Court of Delhi.
8.2 Sh. Yadav further argued that the acquired land was also abutted
on 80 meter road of Rohini sector 23 which was developed prior to
Signing Date:29.10.2024 LA.APP 265/2024 Page 20
the acquisition of land and all modern facilities are available prior to
acquisition of land and as such land subject matter of present appeal
be treated as urban semi developed land and is having geographical
advantage. Sh. Yadav argued that the appellants be awarded
compensation on basis of scheduled market rate issued by Ministry of
Urban Affairs and Development, Government of India for adjoining
village Mangolpur Khurd i.e. Rs. 3180/- per square meter in year
1997 in terms of Award no 05/2003-2004 and 20% increase on Rs.
3180/- which is scheduled market rate issued by Ministry of Urban
Affairs and Development, Government of India. Sh. Yadav advanced
formula for calculation of compensation which is Rs. 3180/- +
20%=3180+636=3816 per square meter as on 27.08.1997 as per
Balwant Singh and further increase at 11.5% from 27.08.1997 to
04.06.2004= 2246 days which comes to Rs. 2700/- and total comes to
Rs. 6516 per square meter. Sh. Yadav prayed accordingly. Sh. Yadav
during arguments relied on Narender & others V State of Uttar
Pradesh & others, (2017) 9 SCC 426, Mehrawal Khewaji Trust
(Registered) Faridkot & others V State of Punjab and others,
(2012) 5 SCC 432, Udho Dass V State of Haryana & others,
Signing Date:29.10.2024 LA.APP 265/2024 Page 21
(2010) 12 SCC 51, National Fertilizers Limited V Jagga Singh
(Deceased) through LRs & another, (2012) 1 SCC 74, DDA V
KapilMehra, (2015) 2 SCC 289 and various other decisions.
9. Sh. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, the Standing Counsel for the respondent
no 1/UOI argued that PW1 Surender Singh has admitted that there
was no government hospital or college near the acquired land and
112 flats as mentioned in affidavit are 2 ½ Km from the acquired
land and village Hiran Kudna is about 7 km away from village Pooth
Kalan. PW2 also admitted that lands surrounding the acquired land
were developed by DDA after acquisition. He also stated that the
appellants before the reference court relied on lease deed issued by
DDA prior to acquisition of land in question to prove that the
surrounding land was fully developed by DDA prior to acquisition.
The appellants also relied on the Award no 05/2003-2004 of Village
Mamgolpur Khurd which is situated about 2 ½ km from the acquired
land and sale deed dated 20.08.2000 Ex. PW1/2 in respect of land
which is situated about 7 Km away from Village Pooth Kalan. Sh.
Pathak argued that the reference court rightly rejected
exemplars/evidence relied on by the appellants as they are happened
Signing Date:29.10.2024 LA.APP 265/2024 Page 22
to be instances of allotment or creation of a perpetual lease by the
Government for specific purpose and these exemplars cannot be
compared with the sale of an undeveloped or underdeveloped
agricultural land acquired for public purpose which requires lot of
development and incurring of high development charges. He further
argued that allotment for creation of freehold right cannot be treated
as an instance of absolute sale and as such cannot be compared to
market value of the land in case of agricultural land acquisition by
the Government. Sh. Pathak relied on Lal Chand V UOI & another,
(2009)15 SCC 769.
9.1 Sh. Pathak stated that the appellants before reference court also
relied on Award no 5/2003-2004 Ex. PW3/3 pertaining to Village
Mangolpur Khurd which was urbanized in year 1982 and land
measuring 02 bigha 03 biswa was only acquired vide Award No.
5/2003-2004 for specific purpose i.e., for construction of 112 LIG
houses in Pocket A, Sector II, Rohini, Phase-1, Delhi but in present
case land was acquired for purpose Rohini Residential Scheme,
Phase-III under Planned Development of Delhi and not to construct
flats. Sh. Pathak argued that PW1 in cross examination admitted that
Signing Date:29.10.2024 LA.APP 265/2024 Page 23
112 flats are 2 ½ km away from acquired land and after referring Lal
Chand further argued that a distance of about 1 km may not make a
difference for purposes of market value in a rural village but in urban
properties like in Delhi even a distance of 50 meters may make a
huge difference in market value. Sh. Pathak also referred cross
examination of PW1 wherein he admitted that no crop was being
cultivated on acquired land for last number of years and he did not
take any step to develop acquired land. Sh. Pathak argued that that
the appellants did not produce any document or evidence that the
acquired land was ever converted into residential/commercial land till
date of acquisition and the reference court rightly rejected to
determine market value of acquired land on basis of market value
determined by LAC in Award no 5/2003-2004 pertaining to Village
Mangolpur Khurd.
9.2 Sh. Pathak further argued that the reference court rightly held that
in absence of any other evidence with regard to calculate fair market
value of the land, the Indicative Price Policy is the best evidence
available to calculate fair market value of the land. However, Sh.
Pathak further argued that the reference court without considering
Signing Date:29.10.2024 LA.APP 265/2024 Page 24
that whether there was increase in the price of the land during
relevant period has enhanced market value by applying increase in
price at the rate of 11.5% per annum (cumulatively) on minimum
index price of Rs. 15,70,000/- per acre and wrongly granted an
annual cumulative increase of 11.5% for 3 years and 65 days and also
countered claim of the appellants for cumulative increase at the rate
of 15%. Sh. Pathak argued that the reference court wrongly granted
enhancement of Rs. 6,50,000/- per acre over and above the
compensation assessed by LAC and same is liable to be modified. Sh.
Pathak further argued that reliance of the appellants on Balwant
Singh V UOI & another, LA appeal no 62/2013 decided on
11.01.2016 is misplaced as this case pertains to land situated in
Village Chhattarpur in South District which was much more
developed land in comparison of land subject matter of present
appeal.
9.3 Sh. Pathak ultimately argued that prices of small plots of land
cannot be basis of evaluating the market value of larger tracts of land
and even adjoining land of same village cannot fetch same market
value due to difference in potentiality and quality. It further argued
Signing Date:29.10.2024 LA.APP 265/2024 Page 25
that comparison with land situated in neighboring village may not be
safe criteria in absence of evidence of two sets of land being
comparable possessing same quality, location and potentiality. Sh.
Pathak argued that no ground for enhancement of compensation is
made out and LAC has granted just and reasonable compensation
after taking into consideration all the relevant factors including
location of land, potentiality and other relevant factors and assessed
the market value of the land @ Rs. 15,70,000/- per acre based on
indicative price. Sh. Pathak in last argued that the reference court
should not have granted enhancement@ 11.5% per annum as
cumulative increase per year for 03 years and 65 days. Sh. Pathak
stated that present appeal is liable to be dismissed.
10. Section 23 of the Act provides statutory provisions regarding
determination of compensation for acquisition for land acquired for
public purpose and section 24 of the Act also laid down the factors
which are not to be considered for the purpose of determining the
compensation. Sections 23 and 24 of the Act read as under:-
23. Matters to be considered on determining
compensation.-(1) In determining the amount of
compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this
Act, the Court shall take into consideration
Signing Date:29.10.2024 LA.APP 265/2024 Page 26
first, the market-value of the land at the date of the
publication of the [notification under section 4, sub-section
(1)];
secondly, the damage sustained by the person interested, by
reason of the taking of any standing crops trees which may
be on the land at the time of the Collector's taking
possession thereof;
thirdly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person
interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of
the land, by reason of serving such land from his other
land;
fourthly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person
interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of
the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting
his other property, movable or immovable, in any other
manner, or his earnings;
fifthly, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the
Collector, the person interested is compelled to change his
residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses (if
any) incidental to such change, and
sixthly, the damage (if any) bona fide resulting from
diminution of the profits of the land between the time of the
publication of the declaration under section 6 and the time
of the Collector's taking possession of the land.
[(1A) In addition to the market value of the land, as above
provided, the Court shall in every case award an amount
calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per annum on
such market value for the period commencing on and from
the date of the publication of the notification under section
4, sub-section (1), in respect of such land to the date of the
Signing Date:29.10.2024 LA.APP 265/2024 Page 27
award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of
the land, whichever is earlier.
Explanation. - In computing the period referred to in this
sub-section, any period or periods during which the
proceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up on
account of any stay or injunction by the order of any Court
shall be excluded.]
(2) In addition to the market value of the land as above
provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum of
[thirty per centum] on such market value, in consideration
of the compulsory nature of the acquisition.
24. Matters to be neglected in determining compensation. -
But the Court shall not take into consideration -
first, the degree of urgency which has led to the acquisition;
secondly, any disinclination of the person interested to part
with the land acquired;
thirdly, any damage sustained by him which, if caused by a
private person, would not render such person liable to a
suit;
fourthly, any damage which is likely to be caused to the
land acquired, after the date of the publication of the
declaration under section 6, by or in consequence of the use
to which it will be put;
fifthly, any increase to the value of the land acquired likely
to accrue from the use to which it will be put when
acquired;
sixthly, any increase to the value of the other land of the
person interested likely to accrue from the use to which the
land acquired will be put;
Signing Date:29.10.2024 LA.APP 265/2024 Page 28
seventhly, any outlay or improvements on, or disposal of
the land acquired, commenced, made or effected without
the sanction of the Collector after the date of the
publication of the [notification under section 4, sub-section
(1); [or]
[eighthly, any increase to the value of the land on account
of its being put to any use, which is forbidden by law or
opposed to public policy.]
10.1 The Supreme Court in Narendra & others V State of Uttar
Pradesh & others, (2017) 9 SCC 426 after following Ashok Kumar
V State of Haryana, (2016) 4 SCC 544 observed that it is duty of
the court to award just and fair compensation taking into
consideration true market value and other relevant factors,
irrespective of claim made by the landowner and there is no cap on
the maximum rate of compensation that can be awarded by the court
and the courts are not restricted to awarding only that amount that has
been claimed by the landowners/applicants in their application before
it.
10.2 The Supreme Court also in Major General Kapil Mehra &
others V Union of India & another, (2015) 2 SCC 262 observed as
under:-
10. Market Value
Signing Date:29.10.2024 LA.APP 265/2024 Page 29
First question that emerges is what would be the reasonable
market value which the acquired lands are capable of
fetching. While fixing the market value of the acquired
land, the Land Acquisition Officer is required to keep in
mind the following factors:-
(i) existing geographical situation of the land;
(ii) existing use of the land;
(iii) already available advantages, like proximity to
National or State Highway or road and/or developed area
and
(iv) market value of other land situated in the same
locality/village/area or adjacent or very near to the
acquired land.
11. The standard method of determination of the market
value of any acquired land is by the valuer evaluating the
land on the date of valuation publication of notification
under Section 4(1) of the Act, acting as a hypothetical
purchaser willing to purchase the land in open market at
the prevailing price on that day, from a seller willing to sell
such land at a reasonable price. Thus, the market value is
determined with reference to the open market sale of
comparable land in the neighbourhood, by a willing seller
to a willing buyer, on or before the date of preliminary
notification, as that would give a fair indication of
the market value.
11. It is reflecting from record that Lt. Governor of Delhi issued
notification bearing No. F.11(1)/L&B/LA/3831 dated 04.06.2004
under Section 4 of the Act to acquire land measuring about 72 bigha
01 biswa situated in revenue estate of Village Pooth Kalan for public
purpose namely "Rohini Residential Scheme" under the "Planned
Development of Delhi" and thereafter, Declaration/Notification No
Signing Date:29.10.2024 LA.APP 265/2024 Page 30
F.11 (1)/L&B/LA/2626 dated 03.06.2005 under section 6 of the Act
was issued. LAC announced the Award bearing no.04 of 2006-07
dated 20.10.2006 under section 11 of the Act in respect of 41 bigha
13 biswa and awarded a compensation at the uniform rate of
Rs.15,70,000/- per acre (or Rs. 3,27,083.33/- per bigha) in addition to
other statutory benefits and interests. The appellants were co-
owners/co-bhoomidhars of land admeasuring 21 bigha and 07 biswa
comprised in Khasra nos. 27/16 Min (4-10), 17(4-16), 18(4-16), 1/7/1
(0-05), 13//21 Min (3-00) and 22 min (4-00) situated in the revenue
estate of Village Pooth Kalan, Delhi which was acquired vide Award
no. 04/2006-07/DC(NW) dated 20.10.2006 Ex.R1. The appellants
challenged the Award by filing reference petition under section 18 of
the Act. The appellants have examined Surender Singh as PW1 who
tendered affidavit Ex. PW1/A in evidence and relied on documents
which are photocopies of Award bearing no. 20/85-86 dated
11.11.1985 and award no. 245/86-87 Mark A, Award No. 5/2003-04
of Village MangolPur Khurd, Delhi Mark D, certified copy of sale
deed Ex. PW1/2 besides other documents. The appellants also
examined Manjeet Singh, Field Kanoongo, SDM, Rohini as PW2
Signing Date:29.10.2024 LA.APP 265/2024 Page 31
who brought copy of Khatoni for the year 1977-1978 Ex. PW2/1and
copy of Aks-Sizra of Village Pooth Kalan Ex. PW 2/2. The
appellants also examined other witnesses and submitted other
documents. The respondent no 1/UOI tendered Award bearing no.
04/2006-2007, Village Pooth Kalan Ex. R1 in evidence.
11.1 The reference court vide impugned judgment did not accept sale
deed Ex. PW 1/2 pertaining to village Hiran Kudnaas relied on by the
appellants for assessing the fair market value of the acquired land as
sale deed Ex. PW1/2 was executed much prior to the date of
notification under section 4 of the Act and the land mentioned in the
sale deed is situated at distance of more than 07 km.The reference
court in impugned judgment rejected assessment of market value of
the acquired land on the basis of allotment made by DDA in the
adjoining area vide allotment letter Ex. PW 4/1, allotment letter Ex.
PW 6/1, perpetual lease deed Ex. PW 6/2 issued by DDA for
allotment of residential plot in the residential/commercial area of
Rohini. The reference court also did not accept Award no. 20/1985-
86 pertaining to Village Pooth Kalan, Ex. PW 3/1, Award No.
245/1986 1987, Village Pooth Kalan Ex. PW 3/2 and Award no.
Signing Date:29.10.2024 LA.APP 265/2024 Page 32
5/2003-2004, Village Mangolpur Khurd, Ex.PW 3/3 relied on by the
appellants to establish that the land, surrounding the acquired land,
after being acquired was developed by the DDA in Sector 20 to 24,
Rohini Residential Scheme and potentiality of acquired land and
observed these documents are cither instances of allotment or
creation of a perpetual lease deed by the government for specific
purposes and as such cannot be compared with sale of an under
developed agricultural land acquired for public purpose. The
reference court also did not accept Award no. 5/2003-2004 Ex.
PW3/3 pertaining to Village Mangolpur Khurd for determination of
fair market value of the acquired land as Village Mangolpur Khurd
was declared urbanized in the year 1982 and LAC vide Award no.
05/2003-2004, Village Mangolpur Khurd Ex. PW3/3 fixed the
market value of Village Mangolpur Khurd prior to acquisition of land
of the appellants at Rs. 3488/- per sq. yard on basis of rates issued by
Urban Affairs and Development Ministry, Government of India. The
reference court also observed that acquired land of the appellants was
agricultural land on basis of cross examination of PW1 wherein PW1
admitted that no crop was being cultivated on the acquired land for
Signing Date:29.10.2024 LA.APP 265/2024 Page 33
last number of years prior to the acquisition and no step was taken to
develop the acquired land and further there was no evidence that the
acquired land was converted into residential/ commercial land till the
date of acquisition. The reference court has determined compensation
of acquired land primarily on basis of Indicative Price Policy
announced by the government. The reference court also considered
that LAC has not taken into account the annual escalation factor for
the period between implementation of the indicative price policy i.e.
01.04.2001 and the date of notification under section 4 of the Act and
following Jai Singh V UOI, 135 (2006) DLT 231 (DB) increased
price of the acquired landat the rate of 11.5 % per annum
(cumulatively) on minimum indicative price of Rs 15,70,000 per acre
and assessed fair market value at Rs. 22,20,900/-and gave
enhancement of Rs. 6,50,900/- per acre besides awarding other
statutory benefits.
12. It is referred on behalf of the appellants that sale deed Ex. PW1/2
be considered for determination of fair market value of acquired land
for purpose of awarding compensation to the appellants. Issue which
needs judicial consideration is that whether sale deed Ex. PW1/2
Signing Date:29.10.2024 LA.APP 265/2024 Page 34
pertaining to land situated in village Hiran Kundna which is
admittedly situated at distance of 7 km can be consider for
determination of market value of acquired land.The reference court
as mentioned and referred herein above has not accepted the sale
deed Ex.PW1/2 pertaining to the land situated village Hiran Kundna
which is stated to be situated in the proximity of the village Pooth
Kalan i.e. at the distance of 6 to 7 km from the village Pooth Kalan.
The reference court has referred the judgment Vilubhen Jhalejar
Contractor V State of Gujarat, (2005) 4 SCC 789 wherein the
principles were laid down for determination of the market value of
the land. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced as
under:-
17. Section 23 of the Act specified the matters required to
be considered in determining the compensation; the
principal among which is the determination of the market
value of the land on the date of the publication of the
notification undet sub-section (1) of Section 4.
18. One of the principles for determination of the amount of
compensation for acquisition of land would be the
willingness of an informed buyer to offer the price therefor.
It is beyond any cavil that the price of the land which a
willing and informed buyer would offer would be different
in the cases where the owner is in possession and enjoyment
of the property and in the cases where he is not.
Signing Date:29.10.2024 LA.APP 265/2024 Page 35
19 Market value is ordinarily the price the property may
fetch in the open market if sold by a willing seller inaffected
by the special needs ofaparticular purchase. Where definite
material is not fortheoming eitherin the shape of sales of
similar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the date of
notification under Section 4(1) or otherwise other sale
instances as well as other evidence have to be considered.
20 The amount of compensation cannot be ascertained with
mathematical accuracy. A comparable instance has to be
identified having regard to the proximity from time angle
as well as proximity from situation angle. For determining
the market value of the land under acquisition, suitable
adjustment has to be made having regard to various
positive and negative factors vis-u-vis the land under
acquisition by placing the two in juxaposition The positive
and negative factors are also enlisted as size of the plot,
proximity or distance from a road, frontage or small
frontage, nearest or distance from developed area, leveled
or unleveled land and even shape of the plot.
12.1The reference court also observed that the superior courts while
examining the case laws has laid down that the market value is to be
considered having duly regard to all existing conditions including
advantages and potentiality attached to the land. The guiding star for
a fair market value would be a conduct of a willing vendor who
offered the land and the purchaser in normal conduct would be
willing to buy as a prudent man in normal market condition but it
should not be an anxious dealing at arm's length or nor façade of sale
nor fictitious sale brought about in a quick succession or otherwise to
Signing Date:29.10.2024 LA.APP 265/2024 Page 36
inflate the determination of the market value in prediction of an
economic event i.e. a price outcome of hypothetical sale expressed in
terms of probabilities. The reference has court also referred the
judgments Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. V State of
Kerala, (1991) 4 SCC 195 and Atma Singh V State of Haryana,
(2008) 2 SCC 568. The reference court also referred the judgment
Jai Singh V Union of India, 135 (2006) DLT 231 DB wherein it
was held that the fancy sales are to be excluded from the purview of
the consideration as there may be special circumstances which may
need a buyer to buy a higher price much higher to the normal market
value if he has a particular need, the circumstances or fancy for a
particular piece of land. While distinguishing a normal sale worth
consideration for determination of market value from a fanciful sale
worth exclusion, this court has laid down the following test:-
The true test is the price which a well inform willing buyer
would pay to an equally well inform seller without being
influenced by any special circumstances or the fancy to buy
a particular piece of land. An informed buyer would be the
one who has studied the market and has apprised himself of
all available land in area, has understood the topology of
the area and the prèvailing price.
Signing Date:29.10.2024 LA.APP 265/2024 Page 37
12.2 The reference court also referred Lal Chand V Union of
India& another, 2009 15 SCC 769 wherein it was held that if the
acquisition is in regard to a large number of agricultural land in a
village and the exemplar sale deed is also in respect of the
agricultural land in the same village then it may be possible to rely to
sale deed as prima facie evidence of the prevailing market value even
if such land is at the other end of the village at a distance of 1 or 2
km. The reference court ultimately held that the sale deed Ex.PW1/2
related to the village Hiran Kundna cannot be considered for
assessing the fair market value of the acquired land as the land
subject matter of the sale deed Ex.PW1/2 was not in proximity of the
acquired land as situated at a distance of more than 7 km. PW1
Surender Singh also in cross examination admitted that village Hiran
Kundna is 7 km away from Pooth Kalan. There is force in argument
advanced by Sh. Pathak that sale deed Ex.PW1/2 cannot be
considered for determination of fair market value of acquired
land.The trial court has rightly observed that the land subject matter
of sale deed Ex.PW1/2 cannot be considered to assess the market
Signing Date:29.10.2024 LA.APP 265/2024 Page 38
value of the acquired land due to reason it was situated at distance of
7 km from acquired land.
13.Sh. Rajesh Yadav stated that other lands of the appellants situated
in Village Pooth Kalan were acquired vide Awards no 245/86-87 and
20/85-86 for planned development of Delhi and said lands were
allotted and auctioned for residential and commercial purposes by the
government and relied on lease deed executed by DDA for allotment
of residential plots and auction of commercial lands. Sh. Yadav also
relied on Award no 5/2003-2004 pertaining to Village Mangolpur
Khurd which touches boundary of the Village Pooth Kalan and was
urbanized in 1982 and developed in the Rohini Residential Scheme-I
by DDA. The land subject matter of present appeal should be treated
as urban semi developed land and is having geographical advantage.
Sh. Yadav as such claimed parity with Award no 5/2003-2004 Ex.
PW3/3.
13.1 Sh. Sanjay Kumar Pathak for the respondent no 1/UOI referred
cross examination of PW1 Surender Singh wherein admitted that
there was no government hospital or college near the acquired land
and 112 flats are situated at a distance of 2 ½ Km from the acquired
Signing Date:29.10.2024 LA.APP 265/2024 Page 39
land and lands surrounding the acquired land were developed by
DDA after acquisition. Sh. Pathak also disputed reliance on lease
deed issued by DDA prior to acquisition of land in question and
Award no 05/2003-2004 of Village Mamgolpur Khurd. Sh. Pathak
argued that exemplars of allotment or creation of a perpetual lease by
the Government/DDA for specific purpose cannot be compared with
the sale of an undeveloped or underdeveloped agricultural land which
requires lot of development. Sh. Pathak also relied on cross
examination of PW1.
13.2 The reference court did not find any parity of the acquired land
with land developed and allotted by DDA in view of the law laid
down in Lal Chand V UOI and rightly do so. The reference court
also rightly observed that the allotment for creation of freehold right
cannot be treated as an instance of absolute sale and cannot be
compared to the market value of the acquired underdeveloped
agricultural land.The Supreme Court in Lal Chand V UOI and also
relied on by Sh. Pathak and also relied on by the reference court
observed as under:-
12. On careful consideration, we are of the view that such
allotment rates of plots adopted by development authorities
Signing Date:29.10.2024 LA.APP 265/2024 Page 40
like DDA cannot form the basis for award of compensation
for acquisition of undeveloped lands for several
reasons. Firstly, market value has to be determined with
reference to large tracts of undeveloped agricultural lands
in a rural area, whereas the allotment rates of development
authorities are with reference to small plots in a developed
layout falling within urban area. Secondly, DDA and other
statutory authorities adopt different rates for plots in the
same area with reference to the economic capacity of the
buyer, making it difficult to ascertain the real market
value, whereas market value determination for acquisitions
is uniform and does not depend upon the economic status of
the land loser. Thirdly, we are concerned with market value
of freehold land, whereas the allotment "rates" in the DDA
brochure refer to the initial premium payable on allotment
of plots on leasehold basis.
14.The reference court also considered the contention of the
appellants regarding the parity of the acquired land vide Award no.
04/2006-07/DC(NW) dated 20.10.2006 Ex.R1with award no.5/2003-
2004 Ex.PW3/3 village Mangolpur Khurd, Delhi which was declared
urbanised in the year 1982 and is touching with the boundary of the
land of the appellants.The concerned LAC has fixed the market value
of the village Mangolpur Khurd at the schedule rate for the year 2000
at Rs. 3488/-per sq. yard as per rate issued by the Urban Affairs and
Development Ministry, Government of India before acquisition of
land of the appellants.The reference court opined that the observation
made by LAC in award no. 05/2003-2004 pertaining to the village
Signing Date:29.10.2024 LA.APP 265/2024 Page 41
Mangolpur Khurd Ex.PW3/3 with regard to the fair market value of
the land of the village Mangolpur Khurd is not relevant to the present
case as the said Award Ex.PW 3/3 was pertaining to the land only
measuring 02 bigha and 03 biswa acquired for construction of 112
LIG flats while in the present case, the land measuring 41 bigha and
13 biswa was acquired which is much higher than the land acquired
vide award no. 5/2003-04. The reference court also referred the
cross-examination of PW 1 wherein he admitted that 112 flats are at
the distance of the 2 ½ kilometre from the acquired land.
15. The reference court has taken the acquired land subject matter of
the present award bearing no.04/2006-07 Ex. R1 as agricultural land
and relied on the cross-examination of the PW-1 wherein he admitted
that no crop was being cultivated on the acquired land in question for
the last number of years prior to the acquisition and he did not take
any step to develop the acquired land. The reference court also
observed that there is no evidence that the acquired land was
converted into residential/commercial land till date of the
acquisition.The reference court also placed reliance on Pratap Singh
(Dead) through LRs V Union of India, LA Appeal No.193/2006
Signing Date:29.10.2024 LA.APP 265/2024 Page 42
decided on 19.12.2008 by the High Court of Delhi wherein it was
observed that the land in question was used for agricultural property
and due to reason that the said land is likely to be used for the
commercial purpose would not be a relevant consideration in fixing
the market value. The reference court has rejected the contention of
the appellants that the market value of the acquired land should be
determined on the basis of rates determined by the LAC vide Award
no.5/2003-04 of village Mangolpur Khurd, Ex. PW 3/3. The
reference court ultimately after treating the acquired land subject
matter of award bearing no. 04/2006-07 Ex. R1as the agricultural
land fixed compensation on basis of indicative price policy
announced by the Government after giving the escalation as
mentioned in the impugned judgment.
16. Issue which needs judicial consideration is that whether acquired
land subject matter of present appeal can be treated as semi-urban
land and Award no 5/2003-2004 Ex. PW3/3 pertaining to Village
Mangolpur Khurd may be considered to determine value of the
acquired land for purpose of compensation. It is apparent that the
boundary of the Mangolpur Khurd touched with the boundary of the
Signing Date:29.10.2024 LA.APP 265/2024 Page 43
acquired land situated in village Pooth Kalan in south-east direction
and is situated just about 2 ½ km from Village Pooth Kalan. The
acquired land is abutting 80 meter wide road in Rohini and was
surrounded by the various residential colonies developed by the DDA
provided with basic and modern amenities. The land of the appellants
acquired by the present award bearing no. 04/2006-07 although
recorded in the revenue record as agricultural land but not used for
agricultural purposes for cultivation for last so many years. The lands
surrounding the acquired land have already been developed by the
concerned authorities. The acquired land was having topographical
advantage with fairly good potentiality. PW1 Surender Singh in cross
examination denied suggestions that Pooth Kalan has not been
developed or that acquired land fell in the rural area of village Pooth
Kalan or that the acquired land is surrounded by the land of other
owners but surrounded by the land of DDA or that MangolPur Khurd
is unauthorized or that potentiality of-the acquired land cannot be
compared with that of urbanized village. PW1 Surender Singh
admitted that there is no Government hospital or college near the
acquired land but there is Begum Pur Police Station near the acquired
Signing Date:29.10.2024 LA.APP 265/2024 Page 44
land. PW1 Surender Singh also deposed that Budh Vihar and Krishan
Vihar are within a radius of 1 km from acquired land. Accordingly,
cross examination of PW1 Surender Singh also reflects that the
acquired land is having fairly good potentiality and may be
considered as semi urban land under given facts and circumstances at
the time of notification under section 4 of the Act.
17. The reference court was not justified by treating the acquired land
of the appellants as agricultural land and to award the compensation
on the basis of the Indicative Index Price Policy as pronounced by the
Government. The reference court did not accept sale deed Ex.PW1/2
pertaining to village Hiran Kudna. The reference court also did not
accept other exemplars such as allotment letters and lease deed issued
by DDA. The direct sale deed or other exemplars pertaining to land
situated in village Pooth Kalan are not available or produced on
record by either of the parties or may not be available. The direct and
proximate documents are not available on record to assess fair market
value of the acquired land.
18. The issue which needs consideration is about criterion to be
adopted for assessment of market value of acquired land vide Award
Signing Date:29.10.2024 LA.APP 265/2024 Page 45
Ex. R1. The village Mangolpur Khurd is situated about 2 ½ km away
from village Pooth Kalan and importantly touches with boundary of
village Pooth Kalan. Award Ex. PW3/3 pertaining to Village
Mangolpur Kurd can be considered to assess compensation of the
acquired land. The concerned LAC has assessed the market value of
the land @ Rs.3,180 per sq. meter in respect of the land acquired vide
award Ex.PW 3/3 pertaining to the village Mangolpur Khurd. Sh.
Yadav, learned Senior Counsel as stated herein above argued the
reference court should have determined the market value of the
acquired land after keeping in view the compensation awarded to the
land of village Mangolpur Khurd vide award no.5/2003-04 Ex.PW
3/3. However, land subject matter of Award Ex. PW3/3 was
urbanized in year 1982 which is not true in case of acquired land
subject matter of present appeal which is also situated at a distance of
more than 2 km from land acquired vide Award Ex. R1. The land
subject matter of Award Ex. R1 is also not fully or partially
developed as reflected from cross examination of PW1 Surender
Singh. The Supreme Court in Major General Kapil Mehra and
others V Union of India and another, (2015) 2 SCC 262 also
Signing Date:29.10.2024 LA.APP 265/2024 Page 46
considered guidelines for deduction towards development out of
compensation. It was observed that deduction for development
consists of two components which are appropriate deduction to be
made towards the area required to be utilized for roads, drains and
common facilities like parks etc. and deduction to be made towards
cost of development that is cost of levelling the land, cost of laying
roads and drains, erection of electrical poles and water lines etc. It
was further observed that the Supreme Court has taken consistent
view that one-third deduction is to be made towards the area to be
made for roads, drains and other facilities subject to certain variations
depending upon its nature, location, extent and development around
the area and further appropriate deduction needs to be made for
development cost, laying roads, erection of electricity lines
depending upon the location of the acquired land and the
development that has taken place around the area.
19.The arguments advanced by Sh. Rajesh Yadav, the learned Senior
Counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted that the appellants are
entitled for compensation on the basis of schedule market rate issued
by the Urban Affairs and Development Ministry, Government of
Signing Date:29.10.2024 LA.APP 265/2024 Page 47
India for adjoining village Mangolpur Khurd i.e. Rs.3,180/- per sq.
meter as determined in the year 1997 in terms of the award bearing
no.05/2003-04 Ex. P 3/3 and escalation of increase of 11.5% which
comes to 6516 per square meter as also mentioned in written
submissions. LAC awarded compensation at the rate of
Rs.15,70,000/- per acre (or Rs. 3,27,083.33/- per bigha) which was
enhanced to Rs. 22,20,900/- per acre. This court in Virender Sood V
Union of India & others, LA. APP. 913/2008 which was upheld by
the Supreme Court in Union of India V Virender Sood,Special
Leave Petition bearing no 3786/2019 decided on 25.02.2019 assessed
the compensation on basis of some guess work. In the present appeal,
no direct evidence/exemplars are available. The acquired land cannot
be considered as pure agricultural land keeping in view surroundings
and other factors. LAC and reference court were not justified to
assess compensation on basis of Indicative Price Policy. The
appellants are entitled for further enhancement. After considering all
facts and assessment on basis of some guess work, the market value
of the acquired land is assessed to Rs. 35,00,000/- per acre including
escalation and permissible deduction on date of notification under
Signing Date:29.10.2024 LA.APP 265/2024 Page 48
section 4 of the Act which is appearing to be just and fair. The
appellants shall also be entitled for other statutory benefits in terms of
judgment titled as Sunder V Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 211 as
awarded by the reference court along with proportionate cost. The
appeal is partially allowed. The decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
(JUDGE)
OCTOBER 24, 2024/ABK
Signing Date:29.10.2024 LA.APP 265/2024 Page 49
