advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Sunday, July 14, 2013

claimants are entitled to same compensation fixed already on relied judgement in the absence of negative grounds= in Balbir Singh’s case the value of the land was fixed to a sum of Rs.50,000/- per bigha. We are, therefore, of the view that while every other reasoning of the Division Bench in adopting the value, which was fixed in Balbir Singh’s case was justified, there is no need to deduct any amount from the said value, in as much as the exemplar relied upon by the Division Bench in Balbir Singh’s case, were all sale deeds pertaining to the period 18.01.1982 to 22.07.1983 i.e., prior to the very first notification issued in respect of the present acquisition of all the four villages viz., 01.08.1983, which notification pertains to the lands belonging to the appellants which were situated in Sahibabad Daulatpur village. = The appeals stand partly allowed by enhancing the compensation from Rs.42,000/- per bigha as determined by the Division Bench of the High Court to a sum of Rs.50,000/- per bigha, in respect of both categories of land. With the above modification in the rate of land value, the appeals stand partly allowed. Needless to add that appellants would be entitled for consequential benefits as per the law, if any.

published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40474
Page 1
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.949 OF 2005
Premwati …. Appellant
VERSUS
Union of India & Ors. ….Respondents
With
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2443 OF 2005
Rajinder Singh (D) by Lrs. …. Appellants
VERSUS
Delhi College of Engineering
….Respondent
J U D G M E N T
Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.
1. These two appeals arise out of a common judgment of the
Division Bench of Delhi High Court dated 07.02.2003, passed in
batch of first appeals commencing from RFA No.167 of 1991 etc.
We are concerned with the judgments passed in RFA No.132 of
1999, wherein the appellant in C.A.No.949 of 2005, was the
appellant before the High Court and RFA No.129 of 1999, wherein
Civil Appeal Nos.949 & 2443 of 2005 1 of 11Page 2
the appellant in C.A.No.2443 of 2005 was the appellant before
the High Court. The appellants were husband and wife. The
appellant in C.A.No.2443 of 2005, died during the pendency of
the appeal before the High Court and the appeal was pursued by
his LRs.
2. The question involved in these two appeals is about the value
of the land to be determined under the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). There
was a Notification under Section 4 of the Act, issued on
26.03.1983, followed by a Notification issued under Section 17(1)
of the Act, in respect of the lands situated in Shahibabad
Daulatpur, Khera Kalan, Siraspur and Samaipur villages. Under
Section 6 of the Act a declaration was also made on the same
date viz., 26.03.1983. The lands of the appellants before us were
all situated in the village Shahibabad Daulatpur. The extent of
land acquired from the appellants were 94 bighas and 2 biswas
bearing different Khasra Nos. covered by LAC case Nos.27 of 93
and 23 of 1993. The other extent of land was 4 biswas in Khasra
No.33/26, covered by LAC case Nos.28 of 1993 and 29 of 1993.
The concerned Awards were Award Nos.26/83-84 and 57/83-84
respectively. The Awards were dated 01.08.1983 and 26.09.1983
respectively. As per the Award, the value of the lands were fixed
Civil Appeal Nos.949 & 2443 of 2005 2 of 11Page 3
by the Acquisition Officer in a sum of Rs.13,000/- per bigha, in
respect of the lands falling under Block-A and Rs.6,000/- per
bigha, in respect of the lands falling under Block-B. The same
was the value fixed in Award No.57/83-84. Aggrieved by the
compensation fixed under the Award, the appellants preferred
LAC case Nos. 23, 27, 28 and 29 of 1993.
3. The reference Court by its judgment dated 07.01.1998,
determined the value in respect of both categories of land viz., A
and B in a sum of Rs.17,500/- per bigha and in respect of the
lands abutting the road in a sum of Rs.18,000/- per bigha. Before
the reference Court, the appellants initially claimed
compensation at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per bigha, but later on
they amended their petition and claimed the market value in a
sum of Rs.1,25,000/- per bigha. Aggrieved by the value fixed by
the reference Court, the appellants approached the High Court
and the High Court by the impugned judgment enhanced the
value to a sum of Rs.42,000/- per bigha. Aggrieved against the
same, the appellants have come forward with these appeals.
4. We have heard Mr.Sanjay Sharawat, learned counsel
appearing for the appellants and Ms.Rekha Pandey, learned
counsel for the respondent (s). We have also perused the Award,
Civil Appeal Nos.949 & 2443 of 2005 3 of 11Page 4
the judgment of the Reference Court, as well as that of the
Division Bench of the High Court and other material papers
placed before us.
5. Having considered the respective submissions and the
judgment impugned, along with the other material papers, we are
of the considered opinion that further enhancement to a marginal
extent can be justifiably granted in favour of the appellants.
6. When we perused the judgments of the Reference Court, we
find that on behalf of the appellants, four witnesses were
examined. P.W.1 Shri Jasbir Rana, is the son of the original
appellant Rajinder Singh, P.W.2 Shri Rehmat Ilahi, who was a
Reader in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Delhi at the
relevant time, P.W.3 Halqa Patwari Rajinder Singh, was examined
to show that Aks Sajra of village Shahibabad Daulatpur and P.W.4
Shri Jaswahar, was a witness from the Ministry of Urban
Development, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi. On the side of the
respondents, no evidence was let in, while two documents were
tendered at the instance of the learned counsel for the
respondents. One of the documents was the judgment of the
Additional District Judge dated 30.03.1987, pertaining to the
same village, as well as the same notification dated 26.03.1983
Civil Appeal Nos.949 & 2443 of 2005 4 of 11Page 5
and the second document was a copy of the Award under
Reference being Award No.26/83-84 which were marked as Exs.
R1 and R2.
7. On behalf of the appellants reliance was placed upon an earlier
Division Bench decision of the Delhi High Court. While enhancing
the compensation to a sum of Rs.42,000/- per bigha, the High
Court relied upon its earlier judgment in Balbir Singh Vs. Union
of India dated 30.10.1991, in RFA No.810 of 1988, which was
reported in 50 (1993) DLT 40. In Balbir Singh’s case, the
question related to the value of the land in respect of the lands
acquired in Siraspur village for planned development of Delhi, in
particular for setting up an industrial estate. Notification under
Section 4 of the Act in that case was dated 27.07.1984 and the
total extent of land acquired was 2123 bighas and 5 biswas. The
land value fixed by the Acquisition Officer was Rs.17,000/- per
bigha for category A lands and Rs.13,000/- per bigha for category
B lands. The reference Court enhanced it to Rs.25,000/- per
bigha for A category and Rs.21,000/- per bigha for B category. In
respect of some of the lands in B category, it was fixed at
Rs.22,000/- per bigha. The High Court enhanced it to a sum of
Rs.50,000/- per bigha for leveled land and Rs.45,000/- per bigha
for the lands in depression.
Civil Appeal Nos.949 & 2443 of 2005 5 of 11Page 6
8. While fixing the land value at Rs.50,000/- per bigha in Balbir
Singh’s case, the High Court took into consideration the sale
deeds, which were executed between the periods 18.01.1982 to
22.07.1983, which was in the range of Rs.25,000/- to Rs.96,000/-
per bigha. Certain other considerations also weighed with the
High Court, while determining the land value in Balbir Singh’s
case, but we are not concerned with the same.
9. One other relevant factor which is required to be noted in the
case on hand was that though in Balbir Singh’s case, the lands
were actually situated in the revenue estate of Siraspur, the High
Court chose to rely on the same. In the case on hand, while
enhancing the value to Rs.42,000/-, the High Court applied the
rule of depreciated value, in as much as the acquisition in respect
of Siraspur village in Balbir Singh’s case was pursuant to
Section 4 Notification, dated 27.07.1984. It is relevant to note
that the present acquisition was made pursuant to Section 4
Notifications of August 1983 and September 1983. The Division
Bench therefore, deducted the value by 12% per annum on the
sum of Rs.50,000/- and arrived at Rs.42,000/- per bigha.
10. For applying the said rate, the Division Bench relied upon
another decision of the Delhi High Court in Bedi Ram Vs. Union
Civil Appeal Nos.949 & 2443 of 2005 6 of 11Page 7
of India and another, reported in 93 (2001) DLT 150, where the
lands situated in the estate of Samaipur, which was also one of
the villages governed by the present acquisition proceedings.
One other relevant factor which is required to be noted is that
P.W.3, who is Halqa Patwari, has deposed before the reference
Court and confirmed that the site plan marked as ‘E’ is the
correct consolidated site plan of village Samaipur and village
Shahibabad Daulatpur. He also further confirmed that the
boundaries of village Shahibabad Daulatpur and of village
Samaipur are adjoining and continuous. By relying upon the
testimony of P.W.1, the son of the appellant, as well as P.W.3 the
Halqa Patwari, it was contended that the lands of the two villages
viz., Shahhibabad Daulatpur and village Samaipur are adjoining
villages and, therefore, the market value of the lands of these
two villages cannot be different.
11. The High Court has in fact accepted the submission by
referring to village Siraspur with reference to the lands,
pertaining to the said village in Balbir Singh’s case, in which a
year later, the value of the land was fixed to a sum of Rs.50,000/-
per bigha.
Civil Appeal Nos.949 & 2443 of 2005 7 of 11Page 8
12. Keeping the above factors in mind, when we consider the
submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants, we find
that the reasoning of the Division Bench of the High Court in
having relied upon Balbir Singh’s case and Bedi Ram’s case
was perfectly justified. We would, however, hasten to add that
when once the Division Bench rightly felt that whatever was
decided in Balbir Singh’s case, so far as it related to the value
of the land fixed therein, can be applied even in respect of the
land situated in Shahibabad Daulatpur, which is an adjacent
village and the acquisition in respect of the lands in the said
village was made simultaneously along with the lands situated in
Samaipur and Siraspur villages, are of the considered opinion
that the same value, which was applied in Balbir Singh’s case
should have been applied even in respect of the lands belonging
to the appellants. We say so because, we find in Balbir Singh’s
case, while fixing the land value in a sum of Rs.50,000/- per
bigha, the High Court considered the various sale deeds of the
period between 18.01.1982 and 22.07.1983.
13. In the case on hand, we are concerned with the land situated
in Shahibabad Daulatpur village and the extent of land which
were acquired from the appellants was 94 bighas 2 biswas of
different Khasra Nos. covered by Award No.26/83-84 and 4
Civil Appeal Nos.949 & 2443 of 2005 8 of 11
Page 9
biswas in Khasra No.33/26, covered by Award No.57/83-84. Thus,
the extent of land acquired from the appellants were also
considerably large. The total extent of land thus, acquired in all
the four villages were around 785 bighas of continuous lands and
the acquisition was for the purpose of establishing the Delhi
Technological University.
14. We are, therefore, of the view that while every other
reasoning of the Division Bench in adopting the value, which was fixed in Balbir Singh’s case was justified, there is no need to
deduct any amount from the said value, in as much as the
exemplar relied upon by the Division Bench in Balbir Singh’s
case, were all sale deeds pertaining to the period 18.01.1982 to
22.07.1983 i.e., prior to the very first notification issued in
respect of the present acquisition of all the four villages viz.,
01.08.1983, which notification pertains to the lands belonging to
the appellants which were situated in Sahibabad Daulatpur
village. 
15. Therefore, even while confirming the reasoning of the
Division Bench in relying upon Balbir Singh’s case for
enhancing the value, we only modify the rate fixed by the
Division Bench to a sum of Rs.50,000/- per bigha instead of
Civil Appeal Nos.949 & 2443 of 2005 9 of 11
Page 10
Rs.42,000/- per bigha. With the modification only in respect to
the rate per bigha, in all other respects the Division Bench
decision deserves to be confirmed. We however, do not find any
merit in the claim of the appellants for claiming any further
enhancement beyond the sum of Rs.50,000/- per bigha, in as
much as there was absolutely no legally acceptable material in
support of any such claim.
16. The appeals stand partly allowed by enhancing the
compensation from Rs.42,000/- per bigha as determined by the
Division Bench of the High Court to a sum of Rs.50,000/- per
bigha, in respect of both categories of land. With the above
modification in the rate of land value, the appeals stand partly
allowed. Needless to add that appellants would be entitled for
consequential benefits as per the law, if any.
………….……….…………………………..J.
[Dr. B.S.Chauhan]
...……….…….………………………………J.
 [Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim
Kalifulla]
Civil Appeal Nos.949 & 2443 of 2005 10 of
11Page 11
New Delhi;
July 02, 2013.
Civil Appeal Nos.949 & 2443 of 2005 11 of
11

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.