Allowed

Ajay Budhi Raja v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC8 Aug 2011LA.APP./527/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the appeal with a condition that the appellant cannot claim interest on enhanced compensation for a 648-day delay and bears appeal costs, disposing of the matter consistent with the Prasceip Nandrajog J batch decision JA APP 784/2005 regarding fair market value and other relief.

What did the court decide?

Appellant allowed to claim relief granted in LA APP 784/2005, but denied interest for 648 days delay and denied costs of appeal.

Ajay Budhi Raja Vs Union of India & Ors. — Land Acquisition | Delhi HC (2011)

¶1

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.

¶2

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 648 days in filing the appeal as also the costs of the appeal.

¶3

The application is disposed of.

¶4

LA.APP. 527/2011

¶5

By way of the present appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment dated 26.10.2009 passed by the Reference Court in LAC No.20/09/08 arising out of Award No.01/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').

¶6

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.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:-

¶7

"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 crossobjections filed by the land owners stands decreed as under:-

¶8

LA.APP. 52712011

¶9

Page 2 of 4

¶10

I) � xxx

¶11

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

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. UOI, for the compensation, paid originally and as enhanced by the Reference Court and finally on the sum enhanced by the present judgment and decree."

¶16

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, to which counsel for the respondent/UOI has no objection.

¶17

Following the aforesaid decision dated 08.07.2011 in the case of Jamna (supra), the present appeal is also disposed of on the same 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 648 days in filing the appeal as

¶18

LA.APP. 52712011

¶19

Page 3 of 4

¶20

also the costs of the appeal, in terms of the orders passed today in CM © 14596/2011 preferred by the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

¶21

HIMA KOHLI,J

¶22

AUGUST 08, 2011 rkb

¶23

!4e - �^{LAAPP. 52712011}

Page4of4

11!

THEH ;IcH^{COUR9 OF. bELHJ:AT NEW DELHI}

' :

)^;t p, •''.

.^;t

:• , ,

. '; • �^{LA.PP:784/2OQ}

¶35

+(: �H

¶36

I Appeflant 4 Through �^{Mr L B Rat, AdvoCate} Mr I S Dahiya. Advocate, % Mr D S Lakra, Advocate, ' Mr K Sunil, Adv(cate, $ MrAnuj Bhandan, Advocate Mr Shadam Farashat, Advocate $

J\MNA

i I

Versus

, & � ,

Respondents

udi & ORS

Through �^{Mr Sanjay Poddar, Standrng} Counsel (LA), GNCT Delhi with ! � Ms Deepika, Mr Sachin Nawani and Mr Siddharth Panda Advocates Mr.Ajay Vem, �^Ms.Karika Agnihotri, Mr Kunal Sharma, Mr Sumer Sethi, Mr B B Sharma, Ms Shobhna Takiar and Mr Arun Birbal, Advocates for DDA

I , '

AND

� LAAP �^879/20051 �^{LA APP �880-881/2005 �LA APP} 121/20O6 143/2007 �^(Relating �^{to �Ndtiftcation �u/s �4 �dated} 25 02 17'^{&Award No 2)1999-2000, Village Mundka)}

¶52

•

¶53

AND

¶54

+1 �LAAPP �583/2009, LAAPP �^{603/2009, LAAPP �604I009,} L �^{APP 606/2009, LA APP 610/2009, 74/2010, LA APP 78/2010}

¶55

Pagelofl9 LAAp784/2005&connected

I I 1 .•

r . .

r .

t :

• � • •

• • ., • • • . ... • .................................................... • •• �• •: . • . • • • . • • • • � . . • ,. • • ' i . • : • . � •• •

¶63

j j

¶64

.: • � . . � .. . � • � .' . � . � - � . �

¶65

907/2010, �LAAPP �^938/2010, �^LAAPP �^{93912010, �LAAPP} 1Ô34/2@ 1^{Q & CM APPL �3086/2011, LAAPP �1040/2010 & CM,} APPL �5673/2011, �^LAAPP �^1041/2010, �^{AAPP �1O43/2O1O,} LAAPP �1045/2010, �^LAAPP �^1046/2010, �^{LAAPP �1048/2010Y} L\APP �1049/2010, �^LAAPP �^1050/2010, �^{LAAPP �1056/2010,} LAAPP �1060/2010, �^LAAPP �^1061/2010, �^LAAPP �^1071/2010, jLAAPP125/2O11,LAAPP 12€/2011,LAAPP 258/2011

¶66

(ReIatig �to �Notification �u/s �⁴ �^dated �^{21 03 2003 �& �Award} 3/2005-06, ViIEage-Mundka)

¶67

LA APP �600/2009, LA APP �^{605/2009, LA APP} �^615/2009, LAARP310/2010, LAAPP 325/2010, LAAPP 376/2010, LAAPP 383/2010, �LA APP �384/2010, �^{LA APP} �^385/2010, , LA APP 473/200, � LAAPP �^492/2010, �^LAAPP �^586/2010, �^LAAPP 591/2010' �LAAPP �638/2010, �^LAAPP �^690/2010, �^LAPP f692/2010, � LAAPP �711/2010, �^LAAPP �^716/2010, �^LAAPP 763/20i0, LA APP �872/2010, �LA APP �873/2010, �^{LA APP} 885/2010, �LA APP �887/20101 �^{LA APP} �^891/2010, �^LAAPP 892/2010, LA APP �898/2010, LA APi? �906/2010 & CM APPL No 4443/2010, �LA APP �937/2010 �& � CM �^APPL �23299/2010, LA APP 1042/20 10, LA APP 1047/2010

¶68

¶69

(ReIaing �to �Notification �u/s �4 �date �^{21 03 2003} �^{& �Award} No 1/2005-06, Village-Mundka)

AND

•

• •

• � •

LA APP �1003/2010, �LA APP �1017/2010,' �LA APP �1019/2010, L4APtP �^{1022/2010, �LAAPP �1023/2010, �LAAPP �1044/2010,'} LAAP,P �1051/2010: LAAPP �•105312010, LAAPP �1054/201D & CM �APPL �No 5656/2011, �LA �APP �1055/2010, �LA APP 1057201O, �LA APP �1058/2010, LA APr) �1059/2010, �LAAPP U068/2010, �LA APP �1069/2010, �LA APP �124/2011, �LAAPP 127/2011,LAAPP 128/2011,LAAPP 259/2011

¶76

LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 3 of 19 t I. I .,• • • . • . ,••. • H •': •: I . • '• -• • • • . • .. � • . .• • •............. • ¼ • 1 4 . . •i � . . � . . � •• �. . � . • � •. I 1 C . . • . •i ii 1 •• �^;• . • •.. •. •: t : . '•. •: •.. i • . �^{••i.•••.••} �^{• �.}

¶77

. . � ..... � .. �. � . � , �

¶78

•: .:

: H

2 � T? �pfsent decision concerns issue of fixatiø �of 1fft mrket vaIe' of land in the rvenue estate of Village Bakkara

¶83

and vIhiage Mundka

¶84

3 �The dates on which fair �m arket value of the land ha to �determined �iay be grapçally t noted asunder - S. No �lame ofVillage r Dateftpotification undeç

¶85

, Sectiori 4 of the LA Act I

¶86

1 �: BakkakJa � 24 9 2003 4 ? BakkarwF 17 6 2005 3 � Mundka 25 2 1997 4 � Mundka 21 3 2003 Mundka 17 6 2005

¶87

J4 r

¶88

¶89

4 � t may be highlighted that the notification at seriOj No 2 )iereinabove, pertaining to village Bakkarwala, i � the same pursu4ant whereto lands were acquired in the revenue estate Villag �Mundka,as per serial No 5 abov1e

¶90

4L\butting NH-lU, leading fro4n the city of Delhi "!. ,tGT the township of Rohtak in the State of Haryna,are villages Mundka, . .. .

¶91

Gheva and Tkri Kalan �Village �Bakkarwala 1iesl. towards the

¶92

other side of t h e' Southern boundary ofvillage Mundka �The difference between the topology of the two villages is, whereas the �land �of �village �Mundka �abuts �NH-lU, �that �of �village

¶93

I^{Bakarwala does not sb abut, being on the other side of the} SouthrnboundaryofrevenueestateofvilIageMundka

¶94

6 �As we proceed from the city of Delhi to the township 1 �• . .•. . • . .t.. of Rbhtak, village Mundka is crossed first, followed by village G. �and then village Tikri Kalan

¶95

7 � Agricultural �lands in village Mundka were acquired

¶96

fi $1	LA APP 478	4/2005 &connected	Page 5 of 19
	I ¶	I 4 4 4	1- I
	1 i	•-• • •�.. .- . I	4'
-• • • '-	. '. • 1	.,.' - • - . • . I I .,�.'..�. - ., -' .�... 1 4 -.�,. r- L• - ' 4 • •- . • - •:i , ••.••	- ,• :�........,..

¶97

¶98

\ T

¶99

the pric for one year @^{11 5% per annum This price was} adoptedfor category A lands For lands in category B, the value was fur*er discounted by 90,000/- per acrePertaining to the notifict1ons dated 21 3 2003 and 24 9 2003, the Land Acquisition Collector relied upon the notification fixing the minirntm price of agricultural landi as of 1.42001 and gave no benefitof enhancement with reference to the fact that the fair, marke;value of the lands tox be determined was as of, 213 2003 and 24 9 2003 � Even pertaining to the notification dated

¶100

:17 6 2d05 which equired fair market value of land to be

¶101

, etermined in the revenue estate of village Bakkarwala and village Mundka as of 17 6 2005, the Land Acquisition Collector determned the same with reference to the notification fixing minimum value of agricultural lands in Delhi as of 1 4 2001 and gave no increase

¶102

11 Aggrieved by the determination of the fair market va l ue b o f the lands by the Land Acquisition Collector, the 'and

¶103

owners sought a •:reference under Section 18 of theOndl Acquisition Act 1894 and o the reference being made, vide

¶104

Variniic iti imAnfc A nr drc � n,hirk i,4--

¶105

}

¶106

¶107

9fjthe Lrid Acquisit1or �ct �Larne �counsel would concede to^{t the reasons given t �the learned Reference Court are not} oI;Jnc:ii �^{would urgetht the two contentions advanced by} hiri should be considered by this Court as the reasons as to why ExP-i be not taken as the basis to determine the fair market ialue �of �lands �in �village �Mundlcça �and �Bakkarwala �Thirdly, Jearned counsel would ffurther urge that the four sale deeds Ex ft-i �to �R-4 �referred �to �in �the �decision �of �the �learned eerence1 Court^{,,. portainingr to �sale �deeds �dated �6 1 1995,} 3O5 197, 4 6 1997 ad 8 9 1997 �relied upon by UOI would shw the actual �markt value of the land and thus learned coçinsef would �urge that the said four sa4le deeds should be corsidered, �but �hastens �to �add, �that �since �^value �^reflected thejeln �is �less �than �the �minimum �pice �^notified �^{by1 the} Gojernmeit, t h e price fixation should be with reference to the 4 �1 minimum price notified by the Governmeiit which is nearest to the, point of time when the respective notifications 2, were issued unçier Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act

¶108

4'-

¶109

20 An �independent and �alternative �argument �^is �^also ad1anced pY learned counsel for the Union �The same rest itslf on a desion of a Division Bench of tins Court r ci eported as 2006 (135) DLI 231 /aisingh Vs 110/ 21 fhe decision in /aiSingh's case (supra) concerns itself with the determination of the fair market value of land in village Bakkarwàla �which �were �acquired �pursuant �^to �^a �^notification dated 15 �0 1993 aP �1,32,000/- per bigha �^{Learned counsel} would ure that the said decision has attained finality inasmdch LA APP 784/2005 & connected Page 12 of 19

¶110

.................... �. � .. � ..' •.•- --'
4 � 4 4 4
• • � . � •s . I .•. . -- . ..•• � .. •• .41
4 � ., •. . ••. . �. . . �• '•. - '-.
• 4 r . ••4 . ¼ .. ....• . �.4 . . � .. . � .. ....
. . � . � . . �.. I � . � . � . � . �.•. � . � .
- � . • � : � . : � • i.•
• ,.- •- � • � . � .• ..' � • ,. . � • �.:-. . � . � 4
• . � . � - �.......' : � ••-. 4 -. � 1-

¶111

1 '

¶112

wouId how that the Court assessed the fair market value 1witEi reference o sale deeds execiuted between the'years 1999 till 1the yer, 1996 either. in Village Tikri Kalan or Village Mundka, appaetfy on the premise that being contiguous villagers, sale price of agricultural land in the 2 adjoining villges would be indicative of fair market value of land in Village Bakkarwala 26 1 In Pratap Singh's case (supra), the Division Bench was concerned with jag.Ncultural lands in Tikri Kalan and another I Village named Ghevra and pertaining to various notifications issued under Section 4 of the Lnd Acquisition Act determined the fair mrket value of agricultural 4ands in Village

¶113

Tikri Kalan and Ghevra as under -

¶114

¶115

S.NO.,	Date.	Yillage	Priceper Bigha
1	24 07 19951 & 16 1�1995	Tikri Kalan	2,1,160/- for Bthck A&�1,73,5d0/7 for Block B land
2.	11 06 1996	Ti)<ri�Kalan�& Ghevra	2,35,815/ 2for Bock A&�1,90,156/- for Block B land
3 t	117 12 2002 . ,.,	Tikri Kalan , ..	4,O2850/- for Block .: A&�3,24,8501- for I. Block B land

¶116

11,97,6 2!- per 'acre pncl ror ,La.tegp[y b 1;dIIu .5,. fair market vaiue at 2,01,117/- per bigha i e 9,65,61 60 per

¶117

I acre

¶118

¶119

9 The next notifi cation with vhich I am concerned.j 3

¶120

dated91^{32003 pertaining to Village frlundka In} Chiranji La/'s

¶121

f Pratap Singh's case

¶122

: cas(supra), with reference to the decision in ; (supra), for agricultural lands in Village Ghevra pertaini'ng to a potification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act I on 6 2 2003, the fair market value assessed was 4,O3,425I-per bigha This was uniformly applied Since there is a time4gap of

¶123

I just a'little over 1 month, I am of the opinion that pertainingto he notification dated 21 3 2003, fair market value of land in : 19,36,44OI- per^acre,

¶124

Village Mundka should be Z4,03,4251- i e

¶125

; which,l hereby fix 30 I propose to deal with the notification dated

¶126

t ' 24 9 2op3, after deali ng with t k h e^{notification dated 17 6 2005} , 1,0^{nds were acquired in Village}

¶127

pursunt whereto agricultural

¶128

1^{Mundka and Village Bakkarwala}

¶129

: 31 As noted hereinabove,.in Chiranhi Lal's case (supra), g to the noticatiofl dated 6 2 2003, fair market valuB

¶130

pe 4,03,425I-^{per bigha ançl thus, increasing}

¶131

assessed byme was coes to

¶132

the same by 10% for 2 years and 131 days, the figure m m

¶133

4,98,59I-^{per bigha, which coes to 23,93,227 20 per cre}

¶134

The sarL is held by e to be the fair arket m m � value of^landin Village Mundka and Village Bakkawala as of 17.61005 I decree

¶135

I the sam I e.

¶136

LAAppg/2OO5&connected

Page 17 of 19

Mundka the � fair �^market �^vatue �^{is �tixea �at �is} I I e �^{11,97,162/- per acre and} 2,49,408 75 per bigha for Category B lands, the faft market value is fixed at : 2,01,117/- per bigha i e � 9,65,361 60 per acre ,^as For � the � land �^situated �^{in �Village �Mundka �the �fair} u) mrket value is fixed at � 4,03,425I-^{per bigha�ie} l9,36,440I-^{per acre, as on 21 03 2003} iii) For � the � land � situated �^Jn �^{Village �Mundka �the �fatr} market value is fixed at � 4,98,589/- per bigha � i e 23,93,227 20 per acre, as on 17 06 2005 ,iv) For the land situted in Vilfge Bakkarwala the fair market value � is fixed �^at �^4,98,589I- �^{per bigha�ie'}

¶144

¶145

Page18of1

¶146

LAAPP784/2005&connected

¶147

¶148

¶149

-. : . •• : ��• • . 4 �• � -. . � . � . � : •! � . � ---... -------, . . - �^i------. .. �^-.----- ,. , � , ., �.,..., .•: • . ' . .. .. . . ,, .. . .

¶150

I	v vi)	23,93,227 20 per acre, as on 17 06 2005 I For the land situated�in Villlagç�Bakkarv1a th�^fair market value is fixed at�4,25,641/- per bigha�ie 20,43,076 80 per acre, as on 24 09 2003 Appellants and cross-objectors who have�ucceeded^AN
	iii)	would also be entitled to solatiurn and inteest as per statute and as clarified in the decision reported as 93(2001)�DLT�569�_Sunder�vs�110/,�_for�^the compensation,�paid originally and as enhanced ty the Reference Court and fin,ally on the sum enhanced by, the present judgment and decree The�appellants�and�cross-objctors�who�succeed would also be entitled to proportionate costs
	viii)	All pending applications stand disposed of in terms of
		the prayers made therein r (PRADEEPNANDRAJOG) JUDGE
ULY lnm	O 8,2	O 11
1AAP	P 784/20	05&connected Page 19 of 19 H .•,..

¶151

l : . • � ,., •:. • • : :. • ' I .. .; •. • . � ... �.,. S. I ' .'. �. � •.. S • � •. . S . • �^SSS . S .1 �•.•' t . ..... ., .5 . •.: . . � • � . �^.5. . . 5 �^•5..S

Ajay Budhi Raja v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Budhi Raja v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Padam Kumar Vaid Vs Union of India & Ors.

Smt Bala Vs Union of India & Ors.

Krishna Janmotsav Samiti Punjabi Bagh Vs Ks Mehra & Ors.

Asha Saxena & Ors. Vs Raj Lakshmi & Ors.

Ram Kishore and Ors. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Asha Saxena & Ors. Vs Raj Laxmi & Anr.