This order allows the appellant's application to file an appeal but dismisses the claim for interest on the enhanced compensation amount for the 540-day delay period and disallows appeal costs.
Application allowed; appeal filed but claim for interest on delayed period and appeal costs denied.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data i s as p er the physical file and no page is missing.
Accordingly, the present application is allowed with the condition that the appellant shall not be entitled to claim interest on the enhanced amount for the period of delay of 540 days in filing the appeal as also the costs of the appeal.
The application is disposed of.
LA.APP. 509/2011
By way of the present appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment 05.02.2010 passed by the Reference Court in LiAC No.28/08/07 arising out of Award No.3/DC(W)/2005-06 pertaining to village Mundka, pursuant to the notification dated 21.03.2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (in short 'the Act').
Counsel for the appellant submits that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench (Pradeep Nandrajog, 3.) passed in a batch of matters, lead matter being LA.APP.No.784/2005 entitled 'Jamna vs. UOI & Ors.' decided as
recently as on 08.07.2011. Learned counsel particularly draws the attention of this Court to the operative para 33 of the aforesaid judgment, relevant portions of which are reproduced herein below:-
"33. � Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Union of India require to be dismissed and I hereby dismiss the same. The appeals filed by the land owners and the cross-objections filed by the land owners stands decreed as under:-
LA.APP.509/2011
Page2of4
xxx
For the land situated in village Mundka the fair market value is fixed at 4;03,425/- per bigha, i.e. !19,36,440/- per acre, as on 21.03.2003.
xxx
xxx
xxx
vi) Appellants and cross-objectors who have succeeded would also be entitled to solatium and interest as per statute and as clarified in the decision reported as 93(2001) DLT 569 Sunder vs. 1)01, for the compensation, paid originally and as enhanced by the � I Reference Court and finally on the sum enhanced by the present judgment and decree.."
It is submitted by the 'counsel for the appellant that tl'ie appellant is also entitled to the relief as granted to other simila5ly placed appellants in the aforesaid batch of matters, to which counsel for the respondent/U0I has no objection.
Following the aforesaid decision dated 08.07.2011 in' the case bf Jamna (supra), the present appeal, is also disposed of on the sarre lines, while granting the same relief to the appellant as granted to the appellants in the LA.APP.784/2005. � However, it is clarified that the appellant shall not be entitled to claim interest on the enhanced compensation for the period of delay of 540 days in filing the appeal as
LA.APP.. 50912011 Page3of4
9
also the costs of the appeal, in terms of the orders passed today in CM 14298/2011 preferred by the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
HIMA KOHLI,J
AUGUST 03, 2011 rkb
LA.APP. 50912011
Page 4 of 4
14
. � . . � . . . : • . 4 I . . . . � . . . . C .
:N THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI .. � ., � .. . � .. . . . � . . . , . . . . . � . . . . th 201.1 Q 0/ Da teofDeci5IO 9 . •1 • • . . . . . . . . : ' .: • ± LiP7412005. : Appellant JAMNA Through �Mr L B Ral, Advc cate, Mr I 5 Dahiya, Advocate, Mr D S Lakra, Advocate, Mr K Sunil, Advocate Mr Anuj Bhandafl, Advocate Mr Shadam Farashat, Advocate , • � Versus i :.; Respondents ' UOl &ORS Through �Mr Sanjay Poddar, Standirg Counsel (LA), GCT Delhi N W. , Ms Deepika, Mr Sachin Nawani and Mr. Siddharth Panda AdMoaateS Mr Ajay Vet ma, Ms Kak' Agnihotri, Mr Kunal 5har9ja Mr Sumer Sethi, Mr B B Sarma, Ms Shobhna Takiar and 1 Mr Arun Ym Birbal, Advocates for DDA • AND
L
fr �tp
LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 1 of 19
3 '
• : • •.. � •• .• • • • . • • • • • • • • • • � • • • •
3 • • � • • .; � ....-. •.I • • •, • . • • • � •. ... • • • • • 4 � } - - - ' .• 1
• � ... • .• •
141
LA APP 784/2005 &conected
Page 2 of 19
annum determined the sum arrived at as of 213,20Q3 as also 24 9 2003 The two sums arrived at were added and dI\fIde by two to rriveat th mea1 figure as of 2l..3.2003, which I note comes to 15,92,083 33 per acre (In some deciions I note the sum arrived at is 15,92,215/-) For the dat 24 9 2003 the price:dtermiped was20,4l,0Q0I:per acre. 15 Pertaining to the notificition dtd 17 6 2005 pursuant whereto agricultural lands were ac'qiid in vilIag Bakkarwala and Mundka the learned Reference dourt adopteb the minimum price for agricultural lands notified by th e l Goernment of NCT Delhi with effect from 1 4 2001 and givin increase @10% per annum determined the value and with respect to the lands in village Mundka, ion account of locational ij 'advantage, being abutting NH-10 gave more and determined /the fair market value as of 17 6. 2005 in sum of 21,37 017 75 per acre and for village Bakkarwala the price determined as 20 35,255/ per acre 16 In the aforesaid backdrop of the factual scenario in which I have penned profiled the reasoning of the Land Acquisition Collector as also that of the Reference Court, I delve 1 into the arguhients advanced before me during hearing today 17 With reference to t h eevidence led in LAC . No 384/2004 /amna Vs UO/ & Ors, it was urged by Sh L B Rat learned counsel for the appellant in LA App No 784/2005, which argument was adopted by other learned counsel who appeaied for the other appellants, that the learned Trial judge was not justified in ignoring the sale deed Ex P-i whereunder 1 bigha
LA.APP.784/2005 & connected
Page 9 of 19
H
H
and 1,73,500/ for category, B land, Z2,35,850 for category A land and Z 1,9O,15O!- for category B land, � 4,02,850/ for ategory A land. and , �3;24,850! �for category B land, respectively I
18 may note here that in various land acqui,sitio references, vaious parties have proved a number of sale deed executed from time to time, but during arguments today befor me, learned cunseI f o r' the land owners have only relied upor the sale deed Ex P-i
19 Percontra, Sh Sanjay Poddar learned counsel for th UOI would urge that the sale price as per Ex P-i cannot b adopted as the yardstick for the reason, to be a representative sample of the whole, the sample must bear some acequat proportion tbthe Whole. Fo;r exa.mple learned counsel would urge that if, it has to be determined whet ier what percentage of stones are mixed in a bag of rice it would not be a afe method to pick only one grain, for if it happens to bete drain of rice o n e would lead to the conclusion that the bag is I � full of i and if that oe grain happens to be a piece of stone, one would reach to the conclusion that the bag is full of stones At least a' fistful should be lifted and then checked a s , .a representative' sample, is the example given The second reason on which learned counsel would attack the sale deed as not being representative of the price is the reason that people do come to know about pending acquisition inasmuch as befre acquisitions are made, land in the area is surveyed � Without a survey, it vould be difficult to issue even the notification ukder Section 4 LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 11 of 19
:H:.
• � •;
I,
would show that ithe Court assessed the fair market value with reference to sale deeds executed betv éen the years 1990 till the year 1996 either in Village Tikri Kaln or Village Mundka, apparently on the premise that being contiguous villagers, sale price of agricultural land in the 2 adjoining villages \NOUld be indicative of fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala 26 In Pratap 5/nc7h'5 cage (supra), the Division Bench was concerned with agricultural lands in Tikri Kalan and another adjoining Village narned Chevra and pertaining to various notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act determined the fair market value of agricultural lads in VilIag i ikn Kalan and Ghevra as under -
| •�SNO. • | Date • |
Village | Pri'celpqr Bigha |
|---|---|---|---|
| 124 | 07 1 995 & Tikr | i Kalan | 2,15,16O/- for Block |
| 16 11 1995 | A. & !1,73,500/- for Block B land |
||
| 2� | �11 06 196� | Tikri�Kalan�& | Z2,35,,815/- for Block |
| Ghevra | A & 1,9O,156/- fo BlockB land |
)—AC'
CI7franJILa! vsLQ0f India & AcqulsitiOflAppbalNo 489/2009, Anr. on2 6 2011 I have determined the fair market value of the .6.2.200 .3 lands in Village Ghevia at 4,Q3,425/- per bigha as of 1 On the i s u e of comparabilitY of land in village BakarWata with village Mundka, Ghevra and Tikri Kalan, it is no dbt true that villaoe BakkarWala does not abut 'NH-0 as do the he other villages, but it has to be highlighted tat it is mot proximate to the urban areas of Delhi vis-visGheVra and Tikri Kalan and to that extent, qua said 2 viltges, has an advantage Since excnesS can never be achieed in the matters of assessing fair compensation1 it is the I road probabilities and similarities which matter �Thus, I hold all�villages to be quivaIent1 ulssUa some lad special featurs can be shon. Fc±JLSii2iLf case (supra) 28 Since the decision in deals with notifications more proximate in point of time to the notifications with which I am concerned, I am of the opinion that it would be just, far and proper to determine the fair market value of lands with which I am concerned in relation to the fair market value of lands determined in Pratap Siq5case (supra) SIng!2 case (supra) for the date As per the decision infratap 24 7 1995,for Category A lands fair compensation assessed was 2,15,160/- per bigha and 1,73,500/- per bigha for Category land The first notification with which I am concerned is 25 2 1997 whereunder lands in Village Mundka were acquired days ie, �days In The time span sweeps 1 year and 216 was determined PratapingCaSe (supra) to be 10% pei annum (flat) Thus, prtaning to Category Page 16 of 19
LA.APP..784/205 & connected �.
H
23,93,227 20 per acre, � as on 17 06 2005 For the land situated in Village Bakkarwala the fair market value � is fixed � at � 4,25,641/- � per bigha � i.e. 20,43,076 80 per acre, � as on 24 09 2003
Appellants and cross-objectors who have succeeded would also be entitled to solatiurn and iterest as per statJe and as clarified � in the dectsion reported as 93(20.01) ::DLT � 569 Sunder vs. for � the compensation, � paid � originally, and � asi janced by the Reference Couit and finally on the surr enhanced by the, present judgment and decree
The' � appellants � and � cross-objectors � who � succeed would also be entitled to proportionate costs
Al � pending applications stand disposed of in terms of the. � ayers rnade threin. .
• • � .; • � ••
(DEEP NANDkAJOG) JUDGE
JULY 08, 2011 mm
LA APP 784/2005 & connected
Page 19 of 19
I � • • � ;
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to interest on enhanced compensation for the period of delay in filing the appeal.
Whether the appellant is eligible for solatium and interest on the enhanced compensation amount.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jamna vs. UOI & Ors.Relied on¶6
LA.APP.No.784/2005 entitled Jamna vs. UOI & Ors.
Sunder vs. Union of IndiaRelied on¶16
93(2001) DLT 569 Sunder vs. 1)01 · Who else cites this
Pratap Singh vs. Union of IndiaRelied on¶54
Pratap Singh v. UOI
Sunder vs. Union of IndiaRelied on¶61
93(20.01) DLT 569 Sunder vs.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jamna
Union of India
Hima Kohli
Deep Nandrajog
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Hima Kohli and Deep Nandrajog
Parties & counsel
