KARTAR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA — 1999 DIGILAW 435 (DEL)

Usha Mehra ( 1 ) NOTIFICATION under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (in short the Act) was published on 12th December, 1972. The Land Acquisition Collector (in short the LAC) classified the land of the appellant into two blocks namely a and "b and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 4. 000. 00 per bigha for Block a and Rs. 3,000/ - per bigha for the land falling in Block b . The total of 55 big has and 10 biswas of appellants land in the revenue estate of Village Bagrola was acquired vide the said notification. Compensation was accordingly granted at the abqvesaid rates. ( 2 ) ON reference under Section 18 of the Act, the Additional District Judge, Delhi (in short ADJ) enhanced the compensation and determined the market value of land of Block a at Rs. 12. 720. 00 and for Block b land Rs. 11. 720. 00 per bigha. The difference made by the Collector with regard to Block a. and Block b land at the rate of Rs. l,000/ - per bigha was maintained by the learned ADJ. ( 3 ) HAVING not been satisfied with the enhancement awarded by the learned ADJ the appellants preferred the present appeal. Appellants have assailed the order of the ADJ, inter alia, on the grounds that the learned ADJ inspite of having referred to the Division Bench decision of this Court in RFA No. 149/1978, titled Bhima and Ors. v. Union of India, decided on 10th July, 1984, ignored the observation of this Court. In that case whereby this Court granted uniform rates for both the dassified lands of Blocks a and b and abolished the categorisation. But in the case in hand the learned ADJ maintained the categorisation without any reason. Secondly in Bhinw s case (supra) the Division Bench determined the market valueof his land at Rs. 13,000. 00 perbigha. But since Bhima had restricted his claim at Rs. 12,000. 00 perbigha, hence the Court granted him the market value of his land at Rs. 12,000. 00 per bigha. However, on the basis of the records and the sale deeds this Court assessed the market value at Rs. 13,000. 00 per bigha. According to appellants there was no reason for the learned ADJ for not assessing the market value of his land at Rs. 13,000. 00 per bigha for his entire land. 12,000. 00 per bigha. However, on the basis of the records and the sale deeds this Court assessed the market value at Rs. 13,000. 00 per bigha. According to appellants there was no reason for the learned ADJ for not assessing the market value of his land at Rs. 13,000. 00 per bigha for his entire land. ( 4 ) WE have heard Mr. V. P. Singh, Senior Advocate and Mr. S. C. Dharmija, Advocate for appellants and Mr. S. S. Dalal for Union of India. The short point for determination is whether appellants are entitled to uniform rates for their entire land as acquired by the LAC or the categorisation as ordered by the LAC be allowed to be maintained. Secondly, whether these appellants are entitled to the same market value as determined by this Court in Bhima s case (supra ). ( 5 ) COUNSEL for the appellants in order to support their contention that the categorisation was not justified drew our attention to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jai Lal and Ors. v. Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 830/1981 decided on 23rd February, 1981 and the Division Bench decision of this Court in Union of India v Ram Kishan, RFA No. 46/1977 decided on 23rd February, 1979 and decision in the case of Bhima and Ors. (Supra ). In these cases the Courts held the uniform value of the land should be awarded. ( 6 ) MR. S. S. Dalal, Counsel for Union of India, on the other hand contended that categorisation is not arbitrary. It is legal. To support his argument he placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Basant Kumar etc. v. Union of India, reported in 1996 Vol. 7 Apex Decision (Supreme Court) page 583=jv (1996) CLT 167 (SC), and Union of India v. Shri Mangtu Ram etc. , (1998) Vol. I Punjab Law Reporter page 160=ll (1997) CLT 481 (SC ). ( 7 ) THERE is no quarrel with the proposition that demarcation/classification of land is not illegal. It is also a fact that all the lands do not command the same market value when they are sold to a willing purchaser by a willing vendor in the open market. Nor the classification can be called arbitrary. ( 7 ) THERE is no quarrel with the proposition that demarcation/classification of land is not illegal. It is also a fact that all the lands do not command the same market value when they are sold to a willing purchaser by a willing vendor in the open market. Nor the classification can be called arbitrary. But at the same time the Court has to keep the facts of each case in mind while considering the case of classification of land. To arrive at the conclusion whether uniform rates should be given or the categorisation to continue, we have to see the reasons which prevailed with the LAC. Reference to LAC s observation in Award becomes relevant. ( 8 ) IN the facts of this case at the very outset it can be said that the classification of the land into Blocks a and b cannot be sustained. The LAC for the purposes of categorisation of land in Village Bagrola relied on the award of Village Shahbad Mohammadpur, the land of which village was acquired vide notification dated 3rd December, 1971 i. e. one year before the acquisition of the land in question. In the words of the LAC as appearing in the award "the revenue estate of Village Shahbad Mohammadpur adjoins the revenue estate of Village Bagrola and in fact the land under acquisition of this village adjoins the land acquired vide notification dated 3rd December, 1971 of Village Shahbad Mohammadpur. " The LAC further observed that the land of Village Shahbad Mohammadpur as well as of Village Bagrola were acquired for the same purpose i. e. for extension of Palam Airport. He also came to the conclusion that the land falling in Block b had a depression of five feet as in the case of Shahbad Mohammadpur. There was a pit from which earth was digged out for Bhattas. This position was also in the land falling in Block b of Village Shahbad Mohammadpur, Therefore, relying on the circumstances and character of the land of Village Shahbad Mohammadpur, the LAC categorised the land of Village Bagrola in two Blocks. The LAC after comparing the situation of the land of Village Shahbad Mohammadpur with that of Village Bagrola not only categorised the land of Village Bagrola in two Blocks but also awarded the same compensation. The LAC after comparing the situation of the land of Village Shahbad Mohammadpur with that of Village Bagrola not only categorised the land of Village Bagrola in two Blocks but also awarded the same compensation. ( 9 ) WE have been told at the Bar that the award of compensation of Village Shahbad Mohammadpur was assailed by Sh. Bhima before this Court. This Court in the case of Shri Bhima after taking note of various provisions of the Act and the decision of the Apex Court abolished the categorisation and allowed uniform rates of land falling in Blocks a and b respectively. Since the LAC in this case compared the land of Village Bagrola with Shahbad Mohammadpur and categorised the same into two Blocks a and b and gave the award, therefore, in the facts of this case the decision in the case of Shri Bhima would squarely apply. Hence the categorisation in view of the decision of this Court in Bhima s case (supra) cannot be sustained. The same is accordingly ordered to be abolished. On parity of reasons as given in the case of Shri Bhima, the appellants herein would be entitled to uniform rates for their entire land falling in Blocks a and b respectively. ( 10 ) THE second limb of the appellant s argument was that the market value of appellant s land as compared to the land of Village Shahbad Mohammadpur which was acquired vide notification dated 3rd December, 1971 should be more. The land in question was acquired vide notification dated 12th December, 1972. There was a gap of about one year between the acquisition of land of these two villages, therefore, the market value of the land of the appellant should be assessed at higher rate than what was awarded to Shri Bhima of Village Shahbad Mohammadpur. We are unable to persuade ourselves to accept this argument of the Counsel for the appellants. Since the land of Village Bagrola is abetting the land of Village Shahbad Mohammadpur and the lands of both the villages having same characteristic and surrounding hence the appellants cannot be awarded any other rate of their land. We accordingly determine the market value of appellant s land at Rs. 13,000. 00 per bigha. ( 11 ) HOWEVER, we have given a thoughtful consideration to this contention of Counsel for the appellants. We accordingly determine the market value of appellant s land at Rs. 13,000. 00 per bigha. ( 11 ) HOWEVER, we have given a thoughtful consideration to this contention of Counsel for the appellants. No doubt the provision of Section 23 (IA) of the Act are not attracted to the facts of this case because the award in this case was published by the LAC on 31st March, 1979 i. e. prior to coming into force of Sub-section (IA) of Section 23 of the Act. But the practice of this Court had been to award Rs. 1,000. 00 per bigha per annum in addition to the market value. Following that practice we order that the appellants in addition to the market value of their land would be entitled to escalation at the rate of Rs. 1. 000. 00 per bigha per year for the period commencing on and from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. The appellants would also be entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% on the enhanced compensation. They are also entitled to interest at the rate of 9% for one year from the date of taking possession, and thereafter, at the rate of 15% on the enhanced amount. Appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the Reference Court is modified to the extehtindicated above. The appellant shall be entitled to costs throughout.