Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1671 (DEL)

UNION OF INDIA v. ATTRI AND CO.

2006-09-18

MUKUL MUDGAL, S.MURALIDHAR

body2006
MUKUL MUDGAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS Regular First Appeal is against the judgment dated 3. 7. 2001 of the learned Additional District Judge in LAC No. 877/1993, enhancing the market value of the land situated in Village Samalkha to Rs. 15,000/- per bigha. ( 2 ) THE said land was notified for acquisition vide notification No. F. 7 ( 17)/85- landb (i) (ii) (iii) dated 10. 11. 86 under Section 4 of the Land and Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act ). The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 5. 3. 1987, By award No. 15/88-89 the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) categorised the land in Samalkha Village into three categories A, B and C. The market value of the land in each category was assessed by the LAC at Rs. 10,000/-, Rs. 13,650/- and Rs. 6000/- per bigha respectively. The land was sought to be acquired for the public purpose of linking of Palam Diversion (NH8) with the Gurgaon By-pass. ( 3 ) IN arriving at the above market value, the LAC took note of the price prevailing at the time of Section 4 notification. e. 10th November, 1986. The LAC took note of 34 sale transactions stated to have taken place prior to Section 4 notification ranging from 16. 12. 1985 to 1. 10. 1986 and concluded that the average rate per bigha for the aforementioned sales came to around Rs. 13,647/ -. Thereafter the compensation as mentioned in para 2 above was fixed. ( 4 ) IN the reference petitions filed under Section 18 of the Act by the land owners, the Union of India relied upon the award itself. It also relied upon the judgments of the learned Additional District Judge in respect of villages B and malik Pur Khohi (Rangpuri ). It also filed copies of the sale deeds dated 18. 6. 1986 and 7. 1. 1986 of village Samalkha which had been marked as Exts. R-1 and R-2. ( 5 ) THE learned ADJ in the impugned order dated 3. 7. 2001, referred to the aforementioned two documents being Exts. R-l and R-2 and held as under: "what is important to note is that these transactions relate to the same village of Samalkha unlike the sale deed relied upon by the claimants which relate to village Rangpur. ( 5 ) THE learned ADJ in the impugned order dated 3. 7. 2001, referred to the aforementioned two documents being Exts. R-l and R-2 and held as under: "what is important to note is that these transactions relate to the same village of Samalkha unlike the sale deed relied upon by the claimants which relate to village Rangpur. These sale transactions are relevant as they reflect what the willing purchasers would pay to the willing seller in the same village of Samalkha prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Act on 10. 11. 86. Out of this Ext. R-l is a sale deed executed by the claimant Satya Narain, Ram Dhan and Narain Singh for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in respect of 4 bigha 16 biswa. This sale deed is dated 7. 1. 86. It was argued that this sale deed related to rectangle No. 23 whereas the land acquired related to rectangle No. 18. That may be so but it is not the claim that rectangle No. 23 was so far removed from rectangle No. 18, that there would have been a different price available to the land acquired in rectangle No. 18. 20. However, it may be noticed that Ext. R-2 is relating to a sale in the month of January, 1986 though in June, 1986 as reflected by sale deed ext. R-1, 4 bigha 16 biswa had been sold for 50,000/- the trend thereafter as referred to in the Award itself shows that the market price had steadily increased. So much so, by end of September, 1986 two bigha had been sold for Rs. 50,000/ -. The notification was of November, 1986. Since there is no evidence to show further increase in the light of the transactions dated 1. 10. 86 where one bigha two biswa had been sold for Rs. 50,000/-, it would appear that the increase from January to September was not sustained in October and that the price fell in the month of october, 1986 as the price of one bigha fell from Rs. 25,000/- to less than rs. 15,000/ -. " ( 6 ) THEREAFTER, the learned ADJ proceeded to determine the appropriate rate to be awarded for the lands in question in the following manner: "21. When the claimants sold their land in January measuring 4 bigha 16 biswa for Rs. 25,000/- to less than rs. 15,000/ -. " ( 6 ) THEREAFTER, the learned ADJ proceeded to determine the appropriate rate to be awarded for the lands in question in the following manner: "21. When the claimants sold their land in January measuring 4 bigha 16 biswa for Rs. 50,000/- the land price was about a little over Rs. 10,000/ - p. b. In September, 1996 one bigha fetched Rs. 25,000/- but in October it came to just below Rs. 15,000/ -. It was argued on behalf of the claimant that land was situated with all amenities and there were hotels in the vicinity and the Airport had also come up well before the land in question was acquired and, therefore, it was claimed that higher value should be fixed. It is to be noticed however, that it is considering all these facilities that one bigha two biswa was sold only for Rs. 15,000/- on 1. 10. 86 just one month prior to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. 22. Considering all these facts and circumstances, therefore, it would be appropriate to fix the market value of the acquired land as on 10. 11. 86 that is the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act at Rs. 15,000/- per bigha. The claimants would, therefore, be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per bigha for the land acquired vide Award No. 15 of 1988-89. " ( 7 ) MR. S. S. Dalai, the learned Counsel for the appellant submits that in the list of sale deeds considered by the LAC in the award, the one dated 18. 6. 1986 at serial no. 12 pertained to an area of 4 bigha and 16 biswa and the total sale consideration was Rs. 50,000/ -. He submitted that on this basis, the value per bigha worked out to only a little over Rs. 10,000/ -. Referring to the sale deed dated 1. 10. 1986 at serial no. 34. which was only a month prior to the Section 4 notification in the instant case, he pointed out that an area to the extent of 1 bigha and two biswa was sold for Rs. 15,000/ -. Therefore, he submitted that the enhancement awarded by the learned ADJ to Rs. 15,000/- per bigha for all the lands was unjustified. 34. which was only a month prior to the Section 4 notification in the instant case, he pointed out that an area to the extent of 1 bigha and two biswa was sold for Rs. 15,000/ -. Therefore, he submitted that the enhancement awarded by the learned ADJ to Rs. 15,000/- per bigha for all the lands was unjustified. ( 8 ) AFTER carefully examining the award of the LAC and the impugned order of the learned ADJ, we are of the view that no interference is called for with the impugned order. It may be straightaway noticed that the sale deed at Sl. No. 12 is dated 18. 6. 1986 which is around five months prior to Section 4 notification. The trend as evidenced in the 34 sale transactions referred to by the LAC reflects that the prices have been going up steadily. Around 10 sale deeds dated 30. 9. 1986 show that for an extent of 2 bigha and 8 biswa, the sale consideration was Rs. 50,000/ -. Also the sale deed at serial No. 34 area was for an area of an extent of 1 bigha and 2 biswa for which the sale consideration was Rs. 15,000/ -. Considering all these facts it can hardly be said that the learned ADJ was in error in assessing the appropriate market value at Rs. 15,000/- per bigha. The reasons given by the learned ADJ in the impugned order are in our view, clear and cogent and on a proper appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties. ( 9 ) IN that view of the matter, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned ADJ and appeal is accordingly dismissed. As regards to the cross objections filed by the respondents, none has appeared on their behalf. In any event we are of the view that there is no merit in the cross objections as well. Accordingly the appeal and the cross objections are dismissed with no orders as to costs. Appeal dismissed.