Suraj Bhan and Others vs Union of India and Another

Sunil Gaur

Vide Notification of 13th December, 2000 u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 a large chunk of land of four villages viz. Bharthal, Bijwasan, Pochanpur and Dhulsiras was acquired and compensation assessed for the village in question i.e. Dhulsiras by the Reference Court is @ Rs. 15 Lacs per acre for ''A'' category land and @ Rs. 13.36 Lacs per acre for ''B'' category land, which is under challenge in the above captioned appeals seeking enhancement of compensation. At the hearing, with the consent of counsels present, the above captioned appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

Prior to commencement of hearing in these appeals, learned counsel for appellants-Suraj Bhan and others had placed on record written synopsis to claim assessment of market value of subject land at pre-determined rates, average auction rates, circle rates of commercial and residential areas of south-west district of Delhi and by relying upon sale deeds of Radha Swami in village Mamurpur, sale instance of village Samalkha while relying upon decisions in Lt. Governor of Delhi and Others Vs. Gurpratap Singh and Others, ; Delhi Science Forum Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Another, ; W.P.(C) No. 4143/2003, Indu Khorana v. Goan Sabha, decided on 26th March, 2010; Trikha Ram Vs. Sahib Ram, ; WP(C) No. 4284/2007, Surat Singh v. DDA, decided on 24th April, 2008; Jai Lal (dead) through L.Rs. Vs. Union of India, ; Om Prakash (D) by Lrs. and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, ; Major General Kapil Mehra and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, ; Delhi Development Authority Vs. Land Acquisition Collector and Others, ; Shri Hari Chand Vs. Union of India, ; Ranvir Singh and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI), ; Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar Vs. State of Maharashtra, ; The State of Punjab Vs. Harchal Singh (Dead) through LRs., ; Thakur Kuldeep Singh (D) thr. L.R. and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, ; Chakas Vs. State of Punjab and Others, ; Haryana State Agri. Market Board and Another Vs. Krishan Kumar and Others, ; Sagunthala (Dead) through LRs. Vs. Special Tehsildar (L.A.) and Others, ; Goa Housing Board Vs. Rameshchandra Govind Pawaskar and Another, ; Trimala Tirupati Devasthanam vs. N. Munikrishna Reddy & Ors., 2005 AIHC 725.

During the course of hearing, when it was put to Mr. Anand Yadav, the arguing counsel that relied upon sale instances, average auction rates, circle rates/pre-determined rates for commercial/residential areas and afore-noted decisions have been already considered in Ranbir Sharma Vs. Union of India and Another, by this Court while determining the market value of the acquired land of adjoining villages i.e. Bharthal, Bijwasan and Pochanpur, then nineteen hypothetical questions were posed by learned counsel, which are noted herein below, only to be discarded, for the reason that they are vague and in-comprehendible. These questions are:

i) Whether UOI can be permitted to argue which has been decided against it and in particular when SLP is dismissed?

ii) Whether the provision of Section 22, 81 of DLR Act, Section 507 of MCD Act and Section 11 of DDA Act in respect of use of land are of no consequence?

iii) Whether market value of land is to be given for the use it is being used at the time of acquisition and not for use for which it can be used legally?

iv) Whether while deciding market value it is possibility of land and not realized possibility must be taken into consideration?

v) Whether the villager can be forced to sell their land as Agricultural land when the area is surrounded by developed colonies and when same is part of urban area and land use of land as per Master Plan is residential/commercial?

vi) Whether the market value of land of appellant is to be fixed for Agricultural land or Residential and other uses?

vii) Whether market value is to be fixed for the use land is being put at the time of acquisition or the land use it can put at present or in future?

viii) Whether rates of Agricultural land in Delhi are same every where?

ix) Whether rates of Agricultural land in Delhi has not increased?

x) Whether Court can ignore the footnote of Notification for fixing minimum rates of market value of Agricultural land?

xi) Whether without evidence the sale can be considered for religious?

xii) Whether UOI can morally and legally can take two different stands in respect of Development of land. When it comes to give compensation stand is taken that land was not developed but when villagers want to developed his land stand is taken that private person cannot develop land?

xiii) Whether land is to be considered as one chunk or larger area of authorities while fixing market value but deny other benefits of larger area when its comes to give benefits to villagers?

xiv) Whether UOI can change stand it has taken before Reference Court and whether argument of UOI can be treated as evidence when no evidence is led?

xv) Whether Court can ignore the evidence lead by the villagers particularly in respect of availability of land, location, urbanization, etc.?

xvi) Whether Court cannot take the judicial notice of the prevailing situation in Delhi and NCR in respect of availability of land and development of land while deciding market value?

xvii) Whether sharp increase of value is abnormal?

xviii) Whether in Delhi villagers has not been exploited and they have not been paid market value of acquired land?

xix) Whether any law provides that vendees are to be produced by land owners and Government is not required produced any witness to challenge sale deed?

Arguing counsel for the appellants had endeavoured to show that evidence was led in these matters which was not there in the case of Ranbir Sharma (supra) regarding development being there in the area around the acquired land in question which would justify assessment of compensation at the rate higher than the one adopted in Ranbir Sharma (supra). In this regard, attention of this Court was drawn to the deposition of PW-1-Raj Kumar S/o. Shri Jai Lal, and some photographs to seek adoption of urban rates to assess the compensation and reliance was also placed upon deposition of Mr. Prahlad Singh (PW-20), from Delhi Development Authority, to reveal the basis for working out pre-determined rates on cost benefit analysis and to point out that development cost was just @ Rs. 2,915/- per sq. meter and that allotment of plot was made on cost basis in Federation of Co-operative Group Housing Society and ors. v. Union of India and ors., 1993 (2) DL 117 (DB).

In the absence of comparable sale exemplars, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in LA.A. No. 266/2008 Jai Singh v. Union of India decided on 23rd August, 2011 and LA.A. No. 656/2008 Sushil Kumar v. Union of India decided on 26th September, 2011 had adopted minimum price of agricultural lands in Delhi to assess the market value of the acquired agricultural lands and this Court had found it to be reasonable criteria to assess the market value of acquired lands of adjoining villages in Ranbir Sharma (supra), while granting 10% increase to assess the market value by adopting the prevalent pre-determined market rate for agricultural lands in Delhi.

According to learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, the fate of these appeals can be no different than of the appeals in Ranbir Sharma (supra) as the evidence led in these matters does not disclose if there was any development around the acquired land, which was not there around adjoining acquired lands in Ranbir Sharma (supra) and so the decisions relied upon by appellants are of no avail and these appeals ought to be disposed of in terms of the decision of this Court in Ranbir Sharma (supra).

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record of these appeals and the decisions cited, I find that the appellants herein are required to be treated at par with the claimants of the adjoining villages in Ranbir Sharma (supra) because there is no fresh evidence on record to clinchingly establish extraordinary potential of the acquired agricultural lands in question. Adoption of urban land rates has been already discarded by this Court while dealing with assessment of compensation in respect of acquired land of adjoining villages and the same reasoning hold good for not adopting the urban land rates to assess the compensation in respect of acquired land in question. Such a view is being taken because evidence regarding assessment on cost basis and self-serving deposition of claimants/appellants regarding future potential of acquired land in question or some unconnected photographs cannot persuade this Court to grant increase of more than 10% over and above the prevalent minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi in the absence of comparable sale instances and in view of the fact that acquired land in question was being put to agricultural use only at the time of commencement of the acquisition in question, despite this village being declared as urbanized.

It is true that when agricultural land of different villages is acquired by one Notification then compensation payable is not to be necessarily uniform one but it has to be so, in the absence of any noteable development in and around the acquired lands. In the instant appeals, there are no distinguishing features which can persuade this Court to grant higher compensation than the one granted in the case of similarly situated acquired land of adjoining villages in Ranbir Sharma (supra).

On future potentiality aspect, in Major General Kapil Mehra and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, , it has been ruled that it is the possibility of land and not its realized possibilities that must be taken into consideration. Meaning thereby, advantageous location and the lucrative potential must be kept in mind while determining market value of such acquired land.

Being conscious of the legal position as enunciated in P. Ram Reddy and Others Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad and Others, ; Sagunthala (supra); Goa Housing (supra); Chakas (supra); Mahesh Dattatray (supra); Thakur Kuldeep Singh (supra) and upon taking note of locational advantage of adjoining acquired land of villages viz. Bharthal, Pochanpur and Bijwasan being in Dwarka Phase-II, thus having future potentiality, 10% increase over and above the market value of acquired land as determined by the Reference Court, which is at par with the assessment or market value made in instant matters, was granted.

Aforesaid determination is audaciously assailed by arguing counsel for appellants before this Court only by tacitly distinguishing Apex Court decision in Lal Chand v. Union of India (2009) 15 SCC 569 relied upon in Jai Singh (supra) & Ranbir Sharma (supra), on the premise that pre-determined rates for agricultural lands in Delhi cannot be uniformly applied to determine market value of agricultural lands upon their acquisition.

Judicial propriety demands that once determination of market value of acquired land is made by the Court while relying upon minimum price for agricultural lands in Delhi, then in a later similar matter, the criterion for determination cannot be assailed while relying upon judicial precedents which have been taken note of in the earlier decision by the same Court. So, persistence of arguing counsel for appellants to rely upon decisions in Sagunthala (supra), Mahesh Dattatray (supra), Chakas (supra), Tirumala (supra) and Thakur Kuldeep Singh (supra) to indiscreetly maintain that the Court cannot rely upon ratio of a judgment and to ignore ratio of another judgment, needs to be deprecated. No doubt value of acquired land can be assessed while taking into account land price of developed/urban land after appropriate deduction for development but only in cases where comparable instances are not available and when sale of nearby residential/commercial plot has proximity of time and distance. No such instance is available in the instant matters and so reliance placed upon aforesaid decisions is an exercise in futility. Important factors to determine market value of acquired land as spelt out in the afore-noted relied upon decisions have been taken into consideration and thereafter only, this Court finds that mere proximity to developed areas, (which has not been even disclosed in the instant matters) and rural area being urbanized, would not by itself afford a reasonable basis to assess the market value of the acquired land in question by adopting urban land rates of developed areas.

It was preposterously contended on behalf of appellants that seemingly Court was not properly assisted and so the ratio of decisions [with obvious reference to Jai Singh (supra) Sushil Kumar (supra) and Ranbir Sharma (supra)] is contrary to the pronouncement by the Apex Court. It was not disclosed as to which pronouncements of Apex Court were referred to. To say the least, such a stand is imprudently taken by appellants in the written synopsis.

Since, there is hardly any evidence regarding any development in and around the acquired land in question, therefore, the case of appellants herein has to be treated at par with Ranbir Sharma (supra) and so adopting the reasoning of the decision in Ranbir Sharma (supra), I find no hesitation in disposing of these appeals in terms of the decision in Ranbir Sharma (supra).

Consequentially, the above captioned appeals (except L.A. Appeal Nos. 378/2007, 728/2011, 729/2011, 730/2011, 732/2011, 815/2011, 817/2011, 822/2011 & 1/2012 of claimants seeking apportionment of compensation) are partly allowed to the extent of awarding 10% increase over and above the market value assessed by the Reference Court towards future potentiality and the cross objections of the respondents are dismissed. Accordingly, the market value of the acquired lands in question is determined @ Rs. 16,50,000/- per acre for the category ''A'' land and @ Rs. 14,69,600/- per acre for the category ''B'' lands in question. On the aforesaid enhancement in the compensation awarded, statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as explained in the judgment reported in Sunder v. UOI, 2001 (93) DLT 569 are granted, except for the period where there is a delay in filing the appeal, for which period of delay, no interest on the enhanced compensation shall be paid. These claimants-appellants would be entitled to proportionate costs.

Registry is directed to delink L.A. Appeal Nos. 378/2007, 728/2011, 729/2011, 730/2011, 732/2011, 815/2011, 817/2011, 822/2011 & 1/2012 from this bunch of appeals and to list them for hearing on 8th November, 2012 in the category of ''Regular Matters''.

Before parting with this judgment, with much reluctance, this Court is constrained to record its disapproval of obnoxious advocacy advanced in these matters and to take note of the falling standard of advocacy. The above captioned appeals and cross-objections are disposed of in the aforesaid terms with direction to the Registry to remit the compensation amount, if any, deposited by either side with the Registrar General of this Court, to the concerned Reference Court. Decree sheets be accordingly prepared.