Skip to content


Mir Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberRegular First Appeal No. 171D of 1965
Judge
Reported in14(1978)DLT121
ActsLand Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 18
AppellantMir Singh and ors.
RespondentUnion of India
Advocates: Rajesh Tyagi and; Ravinder Sethi, Advs
Excerpt:
- - 3750.00 per bigha not satisfied even with this,the appellants have preferred an appeal to this court and now claim rs. (4) the land acquisition collector bad treated the appellants' land as agricultural and had not considered the potential of the land as a building site. 12000.00 per bigha the land covered by the sale deed, however, is for better situate that the appellants' land but it provides some guideline for the trend of prices. similarly, the award of rs 12000.00 per bigha for land abutting on roads though better situate also provides some guideline for evaluating the appellants' land. 10000.00 per bigha claimed on account of location which is not so good and also because the appellants' land does not abut on any road......revenue estate of mohammedpur munirka was notified for intended acquisition under section 4 of the land acquisition act on november 13, 1959. the acquisition was proposed to be made for the pianned development of delhi. a declaration under section 6 of the said act was issued on december 31, 1962. the land acquisition collector made his award no. 1560 on april 16, 1963 fixing the market value at rs 2500.00 per bigha. dissatisfied with the compensation offerred on the basis of the market value fixed by the land acquisition collector, the appellants asked for a reference under section 18 of the act. this reference was answered by the additional district judge, delhi, by his judgment/award dated may 16, 1966. the additional district judge fixed the market value at rs. 3750.00 per bigha not.....
Judgment:

Prakash Narain, J.

(1) The appellants had a share as owners in land bearing Khasra Nos. -61/2, 431, 460/2, 456/2 and 436/2 in the revenus estats of Mahammedpur Munirka. The extent of the share of the appellannt. it is not disputed, words out to an area of 10 bights 12-3/16 biswas. The preseat appeal is with regard to the compensation claimed by the appellants for acquisition of their land.

(2) Bighas 12 bids was of land inthe revenue estate of Mohammedpur Munirka was notified for intended acquisition under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on November 13, 1959. The acquisition was proposed to be made for the Pianned Development of Delhi. A declaration under Section 6 of the said Act was Issued on December 31, 1962. The Land Acquisition Collector made his award No. 1560 on April 16, 1963 fixing the market value at Rs 2500.00 per bigha. Dissatisfied with the compensation offerred on the basis of the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector, the appellants asked for a reference under Section 18 of the Act. This reference was answered by the Additional District Judge, Delhi, by his judgment/award dated May 16, 1966. The Additional District Judge fixed the market value at Rs. 3750.00 per bigha Not satisfied even with this,the appellants have preferred an appeal to this court and now claim Rs. IU.00 per sq. yard as compensation.

(3) In land bearing Khasra Nos.451, 460/2 and 456/2 there were some occupancy tenants. The apportionment of the compensation between the land owners and the occupancy tenants was made by the Land Acquisition Collector in the ratio of 4:12. This apportionment was accepted by the land-owners and the tenants and so, that is not in dispute. Indeed, before the Additional District Judge also the only question was to what enhancement, if any, were the appellants entitled. The same is the situation even now. Once the market value of the land is determined, the Land Acquisition Collector will have to distribute the compensation in accordance with the ratio already fixed vis-a-vis the three fields mentioned above.

(4) The Land Acquisition Collector bad treated the appellants' land as agricultural and had not considered the potential of the land as a building site. He had referred only to mutations of sales for the years 1955 and 1956. The Additional District Judge did not make any comment about the land being either agricultural or a potential building site. He rejected the instances of sales produced by the appellants on the ground that those sales were of plots of land which either abutted on the new Shanti Path Road or the Moti Bagh, Ring Road, while the land in question was in the interior. The instances of sales evidenced by Exhibits A. 5 and A. 6 were rightly rejected, being sales of plots in fully developed colonies situated on the Ring Road. He relied on an another judgment/ award of land in this very village and fixed the market value at Rs. 3750.00 per bigha. That judgment was delivered in Land Acquisition Case No. 473 of 1954, Jalam and others v. Union of India, in respect of field Nos 444, 478 and 479 etc. which were also covered by the Land Acquisition Collector's Award No. 1560. That judgment was relied upon by the respondents and is Exhibit R. 6. The situation of land covered by Exhibit R. 6 cannot be said to be very dissimilar to the appellants' land.

(5) Before us it has been urged that land acquired in this village has ultimately been held to have had market value of Rs. l2.00 per sq. yard by various judgments of this court and so, the claim of Rs. 10.00 per sq. yard made by the appellants should be allowed as being a claim which is even less than what has been held by this court to be the market value. Reference was first made to a decision of this court in R.F.A. No. 572 of 1961, decided on March, 9, 1977. This case related to land comprised in Khasra No. 1308/905, measuring 3 bighas in Mohammedpur Munirka. The notification under Section 4 of the Act in this case has issued on May 24, 1961. The Land Acquisition Collector had awarded Rs. 4OCO.00 per bigha. The Additional District Judge had enhanced the compensation to Rs. 970O.00 per bigha. This court had funher enhanced it to Rs. 12000.00 per bigha. The Primary Consideration was that the land in question abutted on Moti Bagh Road and there was no reason to have awarded for that land less than what had been awarded for field No. 339 abutting on Shanti Path Road, namely Rs. 12000.00 per bigha. This court had observed that at that point of time it could not be said that Moti Bagh Road was in any way less important than Shanti Path Road. This judgment is not of much help to the appellants because the land in the present case is not similarly situated and also the notification under Section 4 of the Act in this case was made almost two years earlier.

(6) In R.F.A. No. 186-D of 1965 decided on November 14, 1977, a bench of this court fixed the market value of the land with which that appeal was concerned at Rs. 12.00 persq yard. In that case the notification under Section 4 of the Act had been issued in October, 1957. Because most of the land covered by these appellants abutted on the Ring Road with developed or developing colonies in the vicinity this court held that Rs. 12.00 per sq. yard . was fair market value. The distinguishing feature of land in case and in the present case is that most of the land covered by that judgment abutted on the Ring Road but in the present case the land is in the interior. The appellants can, however, take advantage of the fact that the land covered by the said judgment was notified for acquisition a little over two years earlier than in the present case.

(7) In our opinion, besides taking advantage of judgment in R.F.A. 186-D of 1965, the appellants can take advantage of the sale-deed dated July 13, 1959, a copy of which has been placed on record and marked Exhibit A. 9. A reading of that document gives a rate of Rs. 12000.00 per bigha The land covered by the sale deed, however, is for better situate that the appellants' land but it provides some guideline for the trend of prices. Similarly, the award of Rs 12000.00 per bigha for land abutting on roads though better situate also provides some guideline for evaluating the appellants' land. Keeping in view all the circumstances of the case and particularly the situation, we feel that the appellants cannot claim Rs. i2000.00 or Rs 10000.00 per bigba but are certainly entitled to some enhancement.

(8) The respondents' contention that the market value at determined by the Additional District Judge is high enough cannot be accepted. Their reliance on the various mutations is of no help because those mutations mostly pertain to the years 1955 and 1956. Indeed, Mutation No. 1-93 dated May 19, I960 of land somewhat similarly situate gives the rate of Rs. 5882 40 per bigba. The land covered by this mutation is marked as 'I' and shaded blue in the Aks Shajra, Exhibit R. 7. It abataion and touches land covered by Exhibit A. I and is very near to land covered Exhibits A 2, A. 6 and A. 9. Exhibit A. 1 is the sale-deed executed in July, 1953, Showing sale of diverse tracts of land at the rate of Rs. 3100.00 per bigha. Lands covered by Exhibits A. 2 A. 6. and A. 9 are those for which this court and even Additional Distsict Judge has given Rs. 12,000.00 per bigha. thereforee, in our view, the appellants' land should be valued at Rs. 7500.00 per bigha, the deduction of Rs. 2500.00 per bigha being made from Rs. 10000.00 per bigha claimed on account of location which is not so good and also because the appellants' land does not abut on any road. We, thereforee, partly accept the appeal and hold that the correct market value of the appellants' land is Rs. 750D.00 per bigha. They will be entitled to enhancement of Rs. 3750.00 per bigha for their share of 10 bighas 12-3/16 biswas. The appellants will also be entitled to the statutory solarium on the enhancement granted and interest from the date of possession till payment of the enhanced compensation. They will also be entitled to interest, as postulated by the amendment brought in the Land Acquisition Act, IS94, under sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment & Validation) Act, 1967. All these amounts should be calculated by the Land Acquisition Collector and paid. We further award proportionate costs of this appeal to the appellants which will be taxed in accordance with the rules.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //