Mukhtiare V. Union of India & ANR

LA.APP./560/2011

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Mukhtiare against the judgment passed by the Reference Court in LAC No.37/04, which pertained to the acquisition of land in village Mundka under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The appellant sought to challenge the compensation awarded for the acquired land, arguing for a higher compensation based on precedents set in similar cases. The High Court referenced a co-ordinate Bench's decision in Roshan Lai Vs. UOI & Ors, which dealt with similar circumstances and land in the vicinity, leading to a favorable outcome for the appellant. The court's decision aligned with the precedents, adjusting the compensation accordingly but denied interest and costs due to the significant delay in filing the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 701674 (HC-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 29-08-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Roshan Lai Vs. UOI & Ors, Sunder Vs. UOI
• Laws Referred To: Land Acquisition Act 1894
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY PATHAK; MOHIT JADHAV; ARUN BIRBAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DEEPAK KHOSIA
• Keywords: Compensation; Condonation of delay; Land Acquisition; Market Value Assessment
• Section: 4

Judgement Text

"r $~41 y * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 560/2011 MUKHTIARE Appellant Through: Mr. Deepak Khosia, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Adv. with Mr. Mohit Rao Jadhav, Adv. for R-l/UOI/LAC. Mr. Arun Birbal, Adv. for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI ORDER % 29.08.2011 C.M. No.l6021/2011fbv appellant for condonation of delay) The present application is filed by the appellants praying inter alia for condonation of delay of 1716 days in preferring the accompanying appeal. At the outset, counsel for the appellants states that in case the delay of 1716 days in preferring the accompanying appeal Is condoned, the appellants shall not claim interest on the enhanced amount for the period of delay as also the costs of the appeal. Counsel for respondents, who appear on advance copy, state that they have no objection to the aforesaid suggestion made by the counsel for the appellant. LA.APP. 560/2011 Page 1 of 4. Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the application, particularly, in para No. 4 and 5, the present application is allowed with the condition that the appellants shall not be entitled to claim interest on the enhanced amount for the period of delay of 1719 days in preferring the appeal and the costs of the appeal. The application is disposed of. LA.App.No.560/2011 'l. By way of the present appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment 25.05.2000 passed by the Reference Court in LAC No.37/04 arising out of Award No.5/DCW-2000-01 pertaining to village Mundka, pursuant to the notification dated 17.06.2005 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (in short 'the Act'). 2. Counsel for the appellant submits that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench (Pradeep Nandrajog, J.) passed in a batch of matters, lead matter being LA.App.13/2007 entitled 'Roshan Lai Vs. UOI & Ors' decided as recently as on 15.07.2011 with regard to land situated in village Baprolla. Learned counsel particularly draws the attention of this Court to the operative paras 24-26 of the aforesaid judgment, relevant portions of which are reproduced herein below:- LA.APP. 560/2011 Page 2 of 4. 24. Since categorization of the lands has not been questioned, thus I hold that for the acquired lands in village Baprola, pertaining to the notification dated 12.8.1997, fair market value of land could safely be assessed with reference to the decision in Jamna's case (supra) and by granting 10% increase in the value of the land, commencing 25.2.1997, being the notification with which I was concerned in Jamna's case (supra), instant notification being 12.8.1997, the increased fair market value of land pertaining to category A lands is ?12,52,264.30 per acre and for category B lands the same is ^10,61,899.50 per acre. 25. The appeals stand disposed of decreeing that for such lands as have been put in category A (Block A) the compensation stands decreed in sum of ?12,52,264.30 per acre and for such lands which are in category B (Block A), compensation decreed is ?10,61,899.50 per acre. 26. It is further decreed that on the enhanced compensation the appellants would be entitled to all statutory benefits as per statute as clarified in the decision reported as 93 (2001) DLT 569 Sunder Vs. UOI except such appeals which were filed belatedly and delay was condoned; said appellants would not be entitled to interest for the period of delay. Proportionate cost is also decreed in favour of the appellants. 3. Counsel for the appellant further states that the land of the appellant is covered under category 'A' for the purpose of grant of compensation. 4. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant is also entitled to the relief as granted to other similarly placed appellants in the aforesaid batch of matters. LA.APP. 560/2011 Page 3 of 4. 5. Counsels for the respondents do not deny that the judgment referred to by the counsel for the appellant is in respect of the same village covered by the same award. 6. Following the aforesaid decision dated 15.07.2011 in the case of Roshan Lai (suoraj, the present appeal is also disposed of on the same lines, while granting the same relief to the appellant herein as granted to the appellants in the LA.APP.13/2007. However, it is clarified |that the appellant shall not be entitled to claim interest on the enhanced compensation for the period of delay of 1716 days in filing the appeal as also the costs of the appeal, in terms of the orders passed today in CM 16021/2011 preferred by the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. MIMA KOHLI,J AUGUST 29, 2011 'anb' LA.APP. 560/2011 Page 4 of 4. 4 i * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + IAAPP. 13/2007 Roshan Lai - Through: Mr. S.K.Rout &Mr.N.S.Dalai, Advocates Versus UOI&ORS - Respondents Throuah: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Standing Counsel (LA), GNCT Delhi with Mr.Sachin Nawani and Mr Siddharth Panda Advocates for R-1 AND LA.APP. 14/2007, LA.APP. 15/2007 LA.APP. If2007 W_APP. r-^-^/orvno I AAPP 582/2008i LA.APPi583/2UUoj LA.APP.584/2008, \"LA.APP.585/2008, LA.APP.589/2008, LA.APP.590/2008, LA.APP.593/2008, LA.APP.597/2008, LA.APP.598/2008, LA.APP.604/2008, LA.APP.606/2008. (Relating to Notification u/s 4 dated 12.08.1997 & Award NO.5/DCW/2000-01, Village Baprola) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAIOG. I. (Oral) 1. Above captioned appeals pertain to acquisition of agricultural lands comprised in the revenue estate of village Baprola. Acquisition commenced pursuant to a notification LA.App.No.13/2007 ^ p dated 12.8.1997 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. As per award No.5/DCW/2000-01, the Land Acquisition Collector categorized the acquired lands into Block A and Block B. He deternnined fair market value of Block A lands at ?2,08,383/- per bigha and Block Blands at ?1,77,083/- perbigha. 3. Land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and for reasons which are not very commendable, the learned Reference Court decided the references by passing orders on different dates. 4. The orders by which references have been decided are dated 25.8.2006, 28.8.2006, 29.8.2006, 30.8.2006, 31.8.2006, 19.9.2006, 22.9.2006, 29.9.2006 and 30.10.2006. 5. I would note that all orders have been passed by the same Judge. It is apparent that the learnedJudge deciding the references was more concerned with the units which he would earn. 6. The problem which he has created for the Appellate Court is that evidence is scattered in various references and different pieces of evidence has been considered in different orders, and further with respect to the same evidence, different reasoning are to be found in different orders. It has only made the journey of this Court a little longer. 7. The Reference Court has enhanced the compensation to ?2,17,374/- per bigha for Block A land and ?1,86,123.38 per bigha for Block B land. A perusal of the various decisions would show, and,indeed learned counsel for the parties so concede, the learned Trial Judge was seized with LA.App.No.13/2007 Page 2 of7 4' P 3 sale deeds dated 5.12.1996, 5.8.1996 and 19.5.1987, exhibited as Ex.PW-1/1, Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3 in LAC No.178/2004. Exhibit marks in other references would be different. The learned Reference Court also discussed an agreement to sell dated 17.8.1996, Ex.PW-1/4 in LAC No.178/2004. 8. Thus, for purposes ofthe instant decision reference is being made to the evidence led In LAC No.178/2004. It may be highlighted that the land owners. In different references were relying upon either or ail the above 4 exhibits. 9. Ex.PW-1/1 pertains to 1 bigha and 3 biswa of land sold in the revenue estate of village Nilothi. Ex.PW-1/2 pertains to 1 bigha land sold In village Mundka and Ex.PW-1/3 pertains to 1 bigha land sold In village Najafgarh. 10. The reasoning of the learned Reference Court in various orders, refusing to place reliance upon the said sale deeds. Is that the contiguity of the 3 villages with village Baprola would be no ground to treat the price of the land in the said sale deeds as reflected of the market value of land in village Baprola for the reason If the principle of contiguity is to be applied, entire Delhi would become one unit. 11- Different reasons have been given by the learned Reference Court not to rely upon the agreement to sell, Ex.PW- 1/1 whereunder for the date 17.8.1996, 12 bigha and 10 biswa of land in village Baprola was agreed to be sold for U4 lacs per acre. 12. The reasoning of the learned Reference Court, cumulatively read; with reference to hues of the view in the various impugned orders is:- LA.App.No.13/2007 Page 3 of? 4 (i) The stated part sale consideration in sum of ^6 lacs was paid in cash. (ii) The buyer did not enforce the agreement to sell and the parties settled for the amount to be refunded in sum of ?8.5 lacs in cash. (iii) The purchaser was a student at the time of the transaction and there was no evidence of his having any source of income. (iv) No steps were taken to obtain no objection certificates from the income tax or the revenue authorities, 13. Cumulative effect aforesaid of the 4 circumstances would be, as per the different process of reasoning adopted, that the transaction is shrouded with suspicion and thus would not be a safe guiding index to determine the fair market value of land in village Baprola. 14. While enhancing the compensation, the learned Reference Court has adopted the price noted by the Government, being the minimum price for agricultural land in Delhi and depressing the same for category Bland and without depressing the same for Category A land, enhanced the compensation by giving price rise @ 12% p.a. on the minimum price as notified. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant^ would urge that a perusal of the map of the city of Delhi would reveal that as we proceed from the city of Delhi towards the township of Rohtak along NH-10, village Mundka is crossed; the lands of village Mundka abut NH-10. The map of Delhi would further show that Najafgarh road, leading to Delhi from Dhansa hits NH-10 near Daya Basti. To put it differently, as NH-10 crosses LA.App.No. 13/2007 Page 4 of? 4 f Daya Basti, Najafgarh road branches out; the point forming a 'V. 16. In between Najafgarh road and NH-10, the space between the 'V has various villages. The village of Nilothi, Baprola, Mundka and Bakarwaia are located In the said space. Standing on Najafgarh road and looking straight towards the North, we find that first In the line Is village Baprola followed by the lands of village Bakarwaia and then the land of village Mundka. In other words; whereas lands of village Baprola would be near Najafgarh road, proceeding along a straight line in the Northern direction would be agricultural land of village Bakarwaia and finally the land In village Mundka and these lands would abut NH-10. 17. In other words the locatlonal advantage of lands In village Mundka would be that they abut NH-10. The locatlonal advantage of the lands in village Baprola would be that though not exactly abutting Najafgarh road, they are extremely proximate to Najafgarh road. Being towards Najafgarh road, lands in village Bapria are near the urbanized part of Delhi, and I note that the residential colony of Vikas Purl abuts the agricultural lands of village Baprola. 18. Thus, the reasoning of the learned Reference Court pertaining to not relying upon the sale deeds of villages Nilothi, Mundka and Najafgarh does not appear to be sound for the reason the learned Reference Court has not considered the topology of the area in its totality and has failed to appreciate that villages Baprola, Nilothi, Mundka and Najafgarh are between the 'V constituted by NH-10 and Najafgarh road. LA.App.No.13/2007 Page 5 of? 19. However, it may be noted that small parcels ad measuring 1 bigha and 3 biswa, 1 bigha and 1 biswa respectively, were sold under the sale deeds Ex.PW-1/1, Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3. The principles of a sampling would guide the Court that to be a representative of the whole, a sample must bear a reasonable proximation to the whole and if the sample is too meager, it would be a sample improperly so called and not a sample properly so called. 20. Thus, not for the reasoning of the learned Reference Court, but for my reasoning hereinbefore noted, I hold that it would be unsafe to determine the market value of agricultural lands in village Baprola with reference to the said 3 sale deeds. 21. As regards the agreement to sell Ex.PW-1/4, ,1 accord my concurrence with the reasoning of the learned Reference Court, it is sound and logical. For the 4 features pertaining to the said agreement to sell, as extracted hereinabove, I hold that it would be most unsafe to rely upon Ex.PW-1/4 to determine the fair market value of lands in village Baprola. 22. In my decision dated 8.7.2011, deciding a batch of Land Acquisition Appeals, lead matter being LA.App.No.784/2005 lamna Vs. UP! & Or^.. pertaining to a notification dated 25.2.1997, fair market value of category A lands in village Mundka was determined at f'll,97,162/0 per acre and for category B lands the same was determined at ?9,65,361.60 per acre. 23. Ihave already held hereinabove that the topology of the area would entitle equivalence of agricultural lands in LA.App.No. 13/2007 Page 6 of? V village Mundka with village Bakarwala as also the instant village, Baprola. 24. Since categorization of the lands has not been questioned, thus I hold that for the acquired lands in village Baprola, pertaining to the notification dated 12.8.1997, fair market value of land could safely be assessed with reference to the decision in lamna's case (supra) and by granting 10% increase in the value of the land, commencing 25.2.1997, being the notification with which I was concerned in lamna's case (supra), instant notification being 12.8.1997, the increased fair market value of land pertaining to category A lands is ?12,52,264.30 per acre and for category B lands the same is no,61,899.50 per acre. 25. The appeals stand disposed of decreeing that for such lands as have been put in category A (Block A) the compensation stands decreed in sum of ?12,52,264.30 per acre and for such lands which are in category B (Block A), compensation decreed is?10,61,899.50 per acre. 's further decreed that on the enhanced compensation the appellants would be entitled to all statutory benefits as per statute as clarified in the decision reported as 93 (2001) DLT 569 Sunder Vs. UP! pyrppi- such appeals which were filed belatedly and delay was condoned; said appellants would not be entitled to interest for the period of delay. Proportionate cost is also decreed in favour of the appellants. JULY 15, 2011/mm LA.App.No. 13/2007 (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE Page 7 of? II "