Skip to content


Bhoop Singh Vs. Union of India - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberRegular First Appeal Nos. 200 of 1983 and 379 of 1984
Judge
Reported in28(1985)DLT240
ActsLand Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4
AppellantBhoop Singh
RespondentUnion of India
Advocates: B.I. Singh,; G.C. Dass and; Rekha Sharma, Advs
Cases ReferredRaghbir v. Union of India Rfa
Excerpt:
property - acquisition - sections 4 and 6 of land acquisition act, 1894, section 4 (3) of land acquisition (amendment and validation) act, 1967 and sections 23 (1-a) and 28 of land acquisition (amendment) act, 1984 - land of appellants acquired under section 4 - appeal for enhancement of compensation - value of potentiality to be ascertained by court on available materials - value to be assessed on basis of what purchaser of potentiality is willing to pay for it - court must try to assess market value having regard to actual value of and potentiality of land. - - he describes it as 'best in quality'.he, thereforee, divided it, as we have said, into three grades a, b and c. apparently the land acquisition collector was not satisfied with these sales because be realised the importance..........first we state the facts of rfa 200 of 1983. (2) in this case notification under section 4 of the land acquisition act 1894 (the act) was issued on 24.10.1961. in due course the land acquisition collector made the award. he divided the land into garden land and blocks a, b and c and fixed rs. 2500.00 for garden land. rs. 2000.00 for block a, rs. 1600.00 for block b and rs. 1200.00 for block c per bigha respectively. (3) on a reference under section 18 of the act the additional district judge raised the market value. for garden land he fixed the market value at rs. 3000.00 , for block a land rs. 2500.00 , for block b, rs. 2000.00 and for block c land rs. 1500.00 per bigha. the appellants in this appeal claim further enchancement. they claim that the market value of their land be fixed at.....
Judgment:

Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.

(1) These are two appeals from the orders of the Additional District Judge. Both the appeals relate to village Badli where the appellants claim enhancement of compensation. First we state the facts of Rfa 200 of 1983.

(2) In this case notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (the Act) was issued on 24.10.1961. In due course the Land Acquisition Collector made the award. He divided the land into garden land and blocks A, B and C and fixed Rs. 2500.00 for garden land. Rs. 2000.00 for block A, Rs. 1600.00 for block B and Rs. 1200.00 for block C per bigha respectively.

(3) On a reference under Section 18 of the Act the Additional District Judge raised the market value. For garden land he fixed the market value at Rs. 3000.00 , for block A land Rs. 2500.00 , for block B, Rs. 2000.00 and for block C land Rs. 1500.00 per bigha. The appellants in this appeal claim further enchancement. They claim that the market value of their land be fixed at Rs. 8000.00 per bigha.

(4) In Rfa 379 of 1984 the notification under section 4 was issued on 4.3.1963. Here too the Land Acquisition Collector divided the land in three blocks A, B and C. For block A he fixed the market value at Rs. 2400.00 , forblockBatRs.2100.00 and for block C land Rs.1800.00 per bigha. On a reference under section 18 of the Act the learned Additional District Judge relied on his previous judgment which he had delivered in the case of notification dated 24.10.61 and allowed a further increase of 6 per cent per annum. He thus arrived at the market value of block A land at Rs. 2725.00 per bigha. In this appeal the appeallants claim further enhancement. They want market price of their land to be fixed at Rs. 15.000.00 per bigha. This judgment will govern both the appeals.

(5) In Award No. 36/81-82 which was made in the case of notification dated 4.3.1963 the Land Acquisition Collector has referred to this village of Badli. He has noticed that there is Badli Railway Station in the village. He found that 'the land is all level'. This village 'sprawls between the boundary of village Rithala, Samaypur, Western Jamuna canal and road leading to village Rithala'. About the quality of land he says that the entire land is nehri land. It is most fertile. He describes it as 'best in quality'. He, thereforee, divided it, as we have said, into three grades A, B and C.

(6) We have seen the plan. The revenue estate of Badin has a network of communications. It has a number of roads. The most important of them is G.T. Road. The other roads are Bahadurgarh Road which connects it to Delhi-Rohtak Road which is another national highway. Then there is Bawana-Ochandi Road which is a metalled road. There is then Rithala Road which connects it with the adjoining village of Rathala. Apart from this there are municipal quarters where the municipal employees are housed by the Municipal Corporation.

(7) Then there is another important aspect about this village. On 26.6.1958 the Delhi Administration issued a notification under section 4 of the Act for acquiring an area of 18 bighas, 6 bids was of land in village Badli for an industrial estate. Section 6 notification was issued on 15.10.1958. Another notification was issued on 4,2.1961 whereby an area of 350 bighas was sought to be acquired for an industrial complex in this village. This industrial complex is in part in village Samaypur and in part in village Badli and adjoins G.T. Road. This is the topography of the village.

(8) The Land Acquisition Collector has noticed that 'there have not been many sale instances in this village.' He found some sales of 1961 the average rates of which were ranging between Rs. 323.00 and Rs. 496.00 per bigha. In 1962 he found the average price between Rs. 552.00 and Rs. 932.00 per bigha. In 1963 there was only one transaction which gave an average of Rs. 729.00 per bigha. Apparently the Land Acquisition Collector was not satisfied with these sales because be realised the importance of this village. thereforee, he said : 'These sales do not apparently reflect the true market value then prevailing.'

(9) We have to determine the market value of the land with such material as is available on the record. We have already described the topography of this village. Now there are three signposts which will be helpful in determining the market value. The first in point of time is a sale transaction dated 8.2.19 I whereby I bigha, 10 bids was of land was sold for Rs. 6000.00 . The sale price works out at Rs. 4.00 per sq. yard. Counsel for the Union of India placed great reliance on this sale and submits that this truly reflects the market price of the land in 1961.

(10) The second example is the allotment of industrial plots by the Delhi Admn. to industries. In 1965 the Delhi Admn. allotted land for industries at the rate Rs. 12.00 per sq. yard. In addition they asked the allottee to pay Rs. 91- per sq. yard on account of development charges. This was the first phase of allotment of lands. In 1976 which marks the second phase, there was another allotment. The allottees were asked to pay Rs. 26.00 per sq. yard and in addition thereto Rs. 91- on account of development charges. Besides these the lessees were also to pay lease money. It will thereforee be clear that these were leases by the Delhi Administration in favor of the allottees. Counsel for the appellants placed strong reliance on these transactions and submits that the potentiality of the land can be gauged by these transactions of leases by the Delhi Administration.

(11) The third type of evidence that we were referred to are the judgments of the courts of neighbouring villages. The first judgment to which our attention was drawn is the judgment in Shakurpur: Ram Mehar V Union of India, Rfa 409 of 1971 decided on 15.10.79. By this judgment this court determined the market value of the land in village Shakurpur at Rs. 8.00 per sq. yard in the year 1961. It will be relevant to state here that the notification in village Shakurpur was the same as in Badli i.e. dated 24.10.61. There was a cluster of colonies round about Shakurpur. Realizing the importance of the colonies the market value of the land was fixed at Rs. 8.00 per sq. yard. Shakurpur is not far from Badli and thereforee this is one of the relevant judgments which we have to keep in mind. Shakurpur, of course, is not adjoining Badli. The other villages nearby are Pitampura, Mangolpur and Rithala. In Pitampura in Munshi Ram v. Union of India, Rfa 176 of 1970 decided on 3.9.1979 the market value was determined at Rs. 5.00 per sq. yard. In Mangolpur the market value was determined at Rs. 6.00 per sq. yard by this court. (See Baldev Singh v .Union of India, Rfa 434 of 1969 decided on 19.7.1979). In village Rithala a learned Additional District Judge following the two judgments of Pitampura and Mangolpur has fixed the market value at Rs. 5000.00 per bigha. (See Raj Singh v. Union of India Lac No. 357 of 1982 decided on 30.8.1983).

(12) Counsel for the appellants referred us to the brochure which has been issued by the Delhi Development Authority about their Rohini project, Rohini project has come up in this village Badin and the brochure says that in Rohini project there is 'instant development' which was possible mainly for the reason that the land was level all around and the village had other facilities. We have already noticed that there is the Badin Railway Station and a network of roads. The industrial complex is situated very near the railway station and right on the G.T. Road. The village has the advantage of a perennial water supply. There runs the canal called Western Jamuna Canal.

(13) The central question in this case is: What is the value which the owner is entitled to be paid for the potentialities of the land. We have no doubt in our mind that the land in the village Badli has a potential value. The sale transaction of Rs. 4.00 dated 8th February does not reflect the market value. It cannot be a safe guide. One sale does not make a market and thereforee we will not attach much importance to this sale. For a true valuation of the land our guides ought to be the judgments of the courts and the transactions of leases of 1965 of the Delhi Administration. It is of course true that the notification in the first case with which we are concerned was issued on 24.10.1961 and in the second case on 4.3.63. The lease transactions are of 1965. But between 1963 and 1965 there has not been any marked rise in the prices and thereforee with the help of the lease transactions one can estimate the value of the land prevailing in 1963. The Delhi Administration charged Rs. 12.00 per sq. yard from the lessee and Rs. 9.00 on account of development charges. thereforee a leasehold plot would cost the lessee about Rs. 21.00 per sq. yard in 1965. If that is the price of a leasehold what would have been the price of a free hold plot in 1961 and 1963. These are the two questions which have to be answered by us.

(14) The value to be ascertained in a land acquisition case is the value to the owner in its actual condition at the date of section 4 notification with all its existing advantages and with all its potentialities (but as possibilities and not as realised in the bands of the purchaser) and subject to the restrictions on the use and enjoyment of the land and to the possibility of their removal. (Cripps on Compulsory Acquisition of Land 11th ed. p. 688). The ascertainment of this value in many cases is a matter of considerable difficulty. The solution, as the Privy Council has said, is not to be arrived at by the arbitrator holding an imaginary auction. (Gajapati Raju v. Rev. DM. Officer, Air 1939 Pc 98). The truth of the matter is that the value of the potentiality must be ascertained by the court on such materials as are available to it and without indulging in feats of imagination. The value must be assessed, it would seem, at what the purchaser of the potentiality is willing to pay for it. That the appellants' land be valued solely with reference to its ordinary agricultural value seems to us absurd. A change in the neighborhood and removal of similar restrictions on land in the immediate vicinity are relevant factors. In this village we have seen that an industrial complex has come up and the restrictions placed by the Land Reforms Act had been removed.

(15) In Shakurpur, as we have said, this court had fixed the market value at Rs. 8.00 per sq. yard. We have said that there was a cluster of colonies and by reason of those colonies the value of the land had increased in 1961 in Shakurpur. In Badli there was no colony as such but there are other corresponding advantages such as industrial complex, railway station, roads, municipal quarters, to which we have already referred. This gave an importance to the village. As we have said, in 1965 the Delhi Admn. itself leased out the plots at the rate of Rs. 21.00 pes sq. yard which included Rs. 9.00 towards development charges.

(16) We have thereforee three guides for the ascertainment of market value. One is the sale of 8.2.61 at the rate of Rs. 4.00 per sq. yard in Badin. The second is the judgment of Shakurpur fixing the market value at Rs. 8.00 per sq. yard as on 24.10.61. Third is the allotment of lease plots at Rs. 12.00 per sq. yard in 1965 by the Delhi Administration.

(17) Much of the calculations necessarily must be in the realms of hypothesis and in that region arithmetic is a good servant but a had master, since there are often so many imponderbles. In every case it is the overall picture that matters and the court must try to assess as best as it can the market price of the land having regard to its actual value and potentiality but subject to the fact that it is the wood that has to be looked at, and not the individual trees.

(18) Keeping all the factors in view we think just and reasonable price to fix in the case of notification dated 24.10.61 will be Rs.7000.00 per bigha. In the case of 1963 notification we determine the market price at Rs. 8000.00 per bigha. Rf A 200/73:

(19) For these reasons in Rfa 200/73 we fix the market price of the land at Rs. 7000.00 per bigha.

(20) In addition to the market value the appellant will be entitled to an additional amount at the rate of 12% per annum on the market value in terms of section 23(1-A) as amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 from the date of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (the Act) till the date of the making of the award or taking of possession, whichever is earlier. The appellant will be further entitled to solarium at the rate of 30% on the market value under the amended law.

(21) Further the appellant will be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum for a period of one year from the date of taking of possession and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till payment on the excess amount, that is, the amount which was increased by the Addl. District Judge and now by this court because that is the excess in terms of section 28 of the Act (as amended). We have given our detailed reasons in Raghbir v. Union of India Rfa 113 & 114 of 1968 decided on December 6,1984. Whatever has already been paid either towards the market value or solarium or interest will be deducted.

(22) As there is a difference of more than three years between the notification under section 4 (24.10.61) and the declaration under section 6 (6. J 2.66) of the Act the appellant will also be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the market value of the land under section 4(3) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment & Validation) Act, 1967 provided there is no overlapping in the payment of interest under section 28 of the Act and section 4(3) of the Amendment Act of 1967. Rfa 379 of 84.

(23) In R.F.A 379 of 1984 we fix the market value at Rs.8000.00 per bigha.

(24) In addition to the market value the appellants will be entitled to an additional amount at the rate of 12% per annum on the market value in terms of section 23(1-A) as amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 from the date of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (the Act) till the date of the making of the award or taking of possession, whichever is earlier. The appellants will be further entitled to solarium at the rate of 30% on the market value under the amendment law.

(25) Further the appellants will be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum for a period of one year from the date of taking of possession and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till payment on the excess amount, that is, the amount which was increased by the Addl. District Judge and now by this court because that is the excess in terms of section 28 of the Act (as amended). We have given our detailed reasons in Raghbir v. Union of India Rfa 113 & 114 of 1968 decided on December 6, 1904. Whatever has already been paid either towards the market value or solarium or interest will be deduced.

(26) As there is a difference of more than three years between the notification under section 4 (4.3.63) and the declaration under section 6 (13.12.66) of the Act the appellants will also be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the market value of the land under section 4(3) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment & Validation) Act, 1967 provided there is no overlapping in the payment of interest under section 28 of the Act and section 4(3) of the Amendment Act of 1967. In both the appeals the appellants will get proportionate costs.


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