AMAR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA — 1998 DIGILAW 529 (DEL)

Arun Kumar, J. ( 1 ) THESE appeals arise from the decisions of the learned Additional District Judges, Delhi in references made to them under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) at the instance of the Land owners. The acquired lands of the appellants fall within the revenue estate of village Mukandpur, Delhi. The dated of notification under sectiop 4 of the Act are as under :-As a matter of fact the land which is subject-matter of the present appeals was acquired under the emergency provisions of section 17 of the Act and the date of notifications under sections 4, 6 and 17 of the Act are the same. The urgent requirement for acquiring the land was for construction of supplementary drain. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation for the acquired land @ Rs. 4,400. 00 per bigha vide his awards with respect to the acquired lands subject-matter of these appeals. The land owners were not satisfied with the award of the Collector and sought reference under section 18 of the Act. The learned Additional District Judges who dealt with the cases fixed the market value of the land at Rs. 10,000. 00 per bigha. The land owners have come to this Court by way of the present appeals and have demanded that the market value of their acquired land be fixed at Rs. 20,000. 00 per bigha. ( 2 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellants mainly relied on a decision of this Court in RFA No. 190/1983 Bahadur etc. V. Union of India decided on 15th November, 1996 by Division Bench of this Court in which the market value of land in village Bhalswa Jahangirpur was fixed at Rs. 17,800. 00 per bigha for land acquired vide notification under section 4 dated 25th March, 1977. It was submitted that village Bhalswa Jahangirpur was adjacent to village Mukandpur which is subject matter of the present appeals. Village Mukandpur is adjacent to the eastern boundary of village Bhalswa Jahangirpur. The learned counsel for the appellants urge that since there were no sale transactions available with respect to Mukandpur, the decision of this Court for the adjoining village could serve as the best guide for determining the market value of land in the present appeals. Village Mukandpur is adjacent to the eastern boundary of village Bhalswa Jahangirpur. The learned counsel for the appellants urge that since there were no sale transactions available with respect to Mukandpur, the decision of this Court for the adjoining village could serve as the best guide for determining the market value of land in the present appeals. There is proximity between the notifications under section 4 of the Act for acquisition of land in the two villages. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent tried to counter the arguments of the appellants on the ground that there was an instance of a sale deed Ex. R-l with respect to village Mukandpur itself pertaining to the year 1974 and when evidence of a sale transaction in the same village was available, there was no need to go to the adjoining village. Secondly, it was submitted that map shows that there was a drain by the side of village Mukandpur which would detract the value of land in the side village. So far as the instance of sale deed Ex. R-1 is concerned even the learned Additional District Judge did not place any reliance thereon for the reason that there was a long time gap between the date of section 4 notification in the present case and the date of the sale deed Ex. R-I. The learned Additional District Judge also found that the transaction in Ex. R-1 did not represent the real value of the subject matter of the sale deed. It appeared to be a distress sale. The learned Additional District Judge put it "it does not seem to be a free and voluntary sale. " In view of the aforesaid reasons we feel that the learned Additional District Judge rightly declined to place any reliance on Ex. R-I. About the argument that existence of a drain would diminish the market value of the land, it is only to be noted that the land itself was acquired for purposes of construction of a drain. The Eischer Map from which the location of the drain was sought to be shown is a map of recent origin whereas the acquisition in the present case was of 1978-79. Therefore, if a drain is shown to be in existence now, it will not make any difference for determining the market value in 1978-79. The Eischer Map from which the location of the drain was sought to be shown is a map of recent origin whereas the acquisition in the present case was of 1978-79. Therefore, if a drain is shown to be in existence now, it will not make any difference for determining the market value in 1978-79. It will be further noted that the acquisition was by invoking emergency provisions of section 17 of the Act. This will show that construction of drain was urgently required. It follows that the drain must have been constructed soon after the acquisition and is, therefore, being shown in the map which is of recent origin. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the respondents also urged that there is no evidence of any development taking place in the area at the time of issuance of section 4 notification and, therefore, the appellants are not entitled to compensation on the same basis as in the case of village Bhalswa Jahangirpur. Regarding village Bhalswa Jahangirpur, it is an admitted fact that the said village was developed during the national emergency in the years 1975-to-77 and a resettlement colony by the name of Jahangirpuri came into existence. This colony was developed by the Delhi Development Authority and the amenities of road, water and electricity were available. The acquisition in the present case is of November 1978 and thereafter. It is beyond comprehension that till the date of section 4 notification, the amenities of water and electricity and roads would not be available in village Mukandpur which is subject matter of present batch of appeals. Admittedly this village adjoins village Bhalswa Jahangirpur where Jahangirpuri resettlement colony came up. in 1976. During that period development was going at rapid all around Delhi and it cannot be said that village Mukandpur was singled out. Therefore, we find no merit in this arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent that there was no development in this village at the relevant time. ( 5 ) THIS leaves us only with the judgment of this Court in Bahadar etc. v. Union of India in RFA No. 19011983 regarding acquisition of land in village Bhalswa Jahangirpur which is adjoining the lands in village Mukandpur subject matter of the present appeals. ( 5 ) THIS leaves us only with the judgment of this Court in Bahadar etc. v. Union of India in RFA No. 19011983 regarding acquisition of land in village Bhalswa Jahangirpur which is adjoining the lands in village Mukandpur subject matter of the present appeals. It is settled law that when instances in the same village from which the land has been acquired are nor available, the court can have resourse to instances from the adjoining villages. When the prices of land rise, they have impact on the entire area and the price rise does not respect village boundaries. For lands in village Bhalswa Jahangirpur this Court has Fixed the market value @ Rs. 17,800. 00 per bigha as on 25th March, 1977. The dates of section 4 notifications in the present set of appeals are 1st November, 1978, 15th February, 1979 and 24th December, 1979. These dated arc later from the date of section 4 notification in case of village Bhalswa Jahangirpur and the time gap ranges from 19 months to 33 months. This means that the appellants in present appeals ought to get a little more because of the time gap. It is to be noted, however, that by claiming the same amount in these appeals the appellants have clearly indicated that so far as the time difference between the three notification involved in the present batch of appeals is concerned which extends upto one year, they do not attach any significance to it inasmuch as they have not asked for anything extra. Thus the appellants are on their own not attaching any significance to the time gap. Secondly, from the location point of view, village Bhalswa Jahangirpur has a slight edge over village Mukandpur. Keeping all the factors in view, we consider it appropriate to fix the market value of the appellants acquired land @ Rs. 18,000. 00 per bigha. The appellants will be entitled to compensation for their acquired land on the basis of the said market rate of land. Besides this, the appellants in each appeal will be entitled to 30% by way of solatium. 18,000. 00 per bigha. The appellants will be entitled to compensation for their acquired land on the basis of the said market rate of land. Besides this, the appellants in each appeal will be entitled to 30% by way of solatium. The appellants will also be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of dispossession till expiration of one year from that date and thereafter @ 15% per annum till the date of payment in court of the compensation in excess of the sum awarded by the Collector in terms of section 28 of the Act. The appellants will be entitled to proportionate costs in these appeals. ( 6 ) BEFORE the curtain is finally drawn, we have to dispose of the claim of the appellants for interest on solatium. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants pressed that the appellants be awarded interest on solatium also. It was urged that solatium is part of compensation and when interest is being awarded on rest of the components of compensation, it ought to be awarded on solatium also. We have considered this argument in detail in RFA No. 387/1991 Ram Phool and Another v. Union of India and for reasons recorded while dealing with this point, this claim of the appellants is rejected. The appeals stand disposed of. .