- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Bharat Singh And Others v. Union Of India
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellants owned approximately 1,900 sq. yds. of land comprised in Khasra Nos. 619/380, 616/376/2 and 616/376/2 in the revenue estate of Chaukri Mubarakabad, Delhi. The land was acquired under notifications dated 18.9.1987 and 9.2.1988 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984. The Land Acquisition Collector, by award No. 28/90, assessed the market value at Rs. 200/- per sq. yd. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the Reference Court assessed the market value at Rs. 2,580/- per sq. yd. by its judgment dated 27.1.1997 and awarded compensation accordingly. The appellants filed the present appeal to challenge the assessment and seek higher compensation.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the market value assessed by the Reference Court (Rs. 2,580/- per sq. yd.) is correct or whether the appellants are entitled to a higher rate of compensation.
- Whether the appellants' land is comparable to the land in Ram Lal Bansiwal (where the Supreme Court enhanced compensation to Rs. 3,000/- per sq. yd.) such that the same rate should be awarded.
- Whether the appellants' land should instead be equated with the land in Nasir Ali (where a Division Bench fixed the value at Rs. 3,000/- per sq. yd. but refused escalation for the three-year gap), given proximity and acquisition circumstances.
- Whether the principle that the court should first look to evidence of value of the acquired land itself (as stated in Shakuntalabai) precludes relying on non-contiguous comparative sales to increase compensation.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments (Mr. Sumit Bansal)
- The assessment of market value even by the Additional District Judge is incorrect; appellants are entitled to a much higher compensation.
- Relied on the Supreme Court decision in Civil Appeal No. 1328/1997 arising out of SLP No. 10661/96 (decided 17.2.1997) where land in the same revenue estate (Ram Lal Bansiwal) was ultimately awarded Rs. 3,000/- per sq. yd.; urged parity with that case.
- Asserted that the appellants' land had similar potential to Ram Lal Bansiwal because appellants were running a re-treading of tyres business at the time of acquisition with a Municipal Corporation licence.
- Claimed entitlement to escalation for the three-year period at 12% per annum.
Respondent's Arguments (Mr. Sanjay Poddar / Union of India)
- Invoked a later Division Bench decision in RFA No. 75/1994 titled Nasir Ali v. Union of India (decided 25.9.1998), where the court fixed the market value at Rs. 3,000/- per sq. yd. after considering Ram Lal Bansiwal but declined escalation for the three-year gap.
- Emphasized factual distinctions: in Ram Lal Bansiwal a petrol pump was being run at the time of acquisition and the land abutted the main road with advantageous access, facts not present in the Nasir Ali land.
- Suggested that the appellants' land could not be equated with Ram Lal Bansiwal and was more appropriately compared with Nasir Ali.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Civil Appeal No. 1328/1997 arising out of SLP No. 10661/96 decided on 17.2.1997 (Ram Lal Bansiwal v. Union of India) | Supreme Court enhanced compensation in that matter to Rs. 3,000/- per sq. yd.; used by appellants to claim parity and similar valuation. | Cited by appellants as support for awarding Rs. 3,000/- per sq. yd. to the present appellants; court examined factual distinctions and declined to equate the appellants' land directly with Ram Lal Bansiwal. |
| RFA No. 75/1994 titled as Nasir Ali v. Union of India decided on 25.9.1998 | The Division Bench assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 3,000/- per sq. yd. after considering relevant facts and the Supreme Court decision in Ram Lal Bansiwal; explained why Nasir Ali's land could not be equated with Ram Lal Bansiwal (petrol pump, main road access) and declined escalation for the three-year gap. | The court held that the appellants' land was contiguous to Nasir Ali's and acquired by the same notification for the same purpose, so the appellants' case was squarely covered by Nasir Ali and the market value was fixed at Rs. 3,000/- per sq. yd. |
| Civil Appeal No. 3557/1984 decided on 23.11.1995 (Shakuntalabai (Smt.) and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra) | Established the principle that in determining market value the court should first see if there is evidence of the value of the acquired land itself on record and that it is unnecessary to go beyond that to adjacent land. | The court invoked this principle to justify not extending comparison beyond the directly relevant evidence (i.e., to avoid equating the appellants' land with non-contiguous Ram Lal Bansiwal) and to rely on the Nasir Ali precedent and direct evidence. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined the relevant map/site plan showing locations of the lands of Ram Lal Bansiwal, Nasir Ali and the appellants. It observed that the appellants' land is contiguous to Nasir Ali's land (separated only by a boundary wall), whereas Ram Lal Bansiwal's land is at a considerable distance and abuts the main road.
Applying the principle from Shakuntalabai that the court must first look to evidence of the value of the acquired land itself and need not travel beyond that evidence to adjacent land, the court concluded that the appellants could not, "by any stretch," claim parity with Ram Lal Bansiwal. The court found that the appellants could properly claim parity with Nasir Ali because of contiguity, the same acquisition notification, and the same purpose of acquisition.
On that basis, and having regard to the Division Bench judgment in Nasir Ali which fixed the value at Rs. 3,000/- per sq. yd., the court held that Rs. 3,000/- per sq. yd. is the correct assessment of the appellants' land. The court therefore adopted the Nasir Ali valuation rather than the earlier valuation in the appellants' favour or any higher rate claimed by drawing a parallel with Ram Lal Bansiwal.
Holding and Implications
Holding: This appeal is partly allowed and the market value of the appellants' land is assessed at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per sq. yd.
Implications:
- The appellants are entitled to all other statutory benefits in terms of the order of the learned Additional District Judge calculated on the enhanced amount of Rs. 3,000/- per sq. yd.
- The appellants are also entitled to proportionate costs.
- The opinion applies and follows prior authority (Nasir Ali and Shakuntalabai) to determine valuation; it does not purport to create a new precedent beyond applying those earlier decisions.
R.C Jain, J.:— The land of the appellants measuring about 1900 sq. yds comprised in Khasra Nos. 619/380, 616/376/2 and 616/376/2 situated in the revenue estate of Chaukri Mubarakabad, Delhi, was acquired through notifications dated 18.9.1987 and 9.2.1988 issued under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). The Land Acquisition Collector vide award No. 28/90, assessed the market value of the acquired land of the appellants @ Rs. 200/- per sq. yds. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the Reference Court assessed the market value @ Rs. 2580/- per sq. yds. vide its judgment dated 27.1.1997 and awarded compensation to the appellants at the said rate besides other statutory benefits. Not contended even with the enhanced value of their land the appellants have approached this Court through this appeal.
2. Mr. Sumit Bansal, learned counsel representing the appellants has strenuously urged that the assessment of the market value of the acquired land of the petitioner even by the learned Additional District Judge is not correct as according to him the appellants are entitled to compensation at much higher rate. In support of his plea, Mr. Bansal has placed reliance upon the Supreme Court decision in Civil Appeal No. 1328/1997 arising out of SLP No. 10661/96 decided on 17.2.1997 In that case, the land of a certain Ram Lal Bansiwal of the same revenue estate was acquired vide a notification dated 27.7.1984 In that case, a Division Bench of this Court in RFA No. 131/1988 titled as Ram Lal Bansiwal v. Union of India had fixed the market value of the said land @ Rs. 2320/- per sq. yds. In SLP/appeal, the Apex Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 3,000/- per sq. yds. Mr. Bansal urged that since the land of the appellants had the similar potential as that of the land of Ram Lal Bansiwal, the appellants are entitled to compensation at the same rate, besides the escalation for a period of three years @12% p.a On the other hand, Mr. Sanjay Poddar, learned counsel representing the respondent/UOI has invited our attention to a later decision of the Division Bench of this Court in RFA No. 75/1994 titled as Nasir Ali v. Union of India decided on 25.9.1998 In that case, the land of Nasir Ali was acquired by the same notification dated 18.9.1987 for the same purpose and on a consideration of the relevant facts and circumstances of the case and after taking into account the Supreme Court decision in the case of Ram Lal Bansiwal (Supra), the court assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 3,000/- per sq. yds. The Court gave cogent reasons as to why the land of the appellant (Nasir Ali) could not be equated with the land of Ram Lal Bansiwal as a petrol pump was being run on the land of Ram Lal Bansiwal at the time of its acquisition and it was abutted on the main road and has an easy and advantageous access, while the land of the appellant (Nasir Ali) was not situated in such an advantageous position and had not the similar potential. The Court, therefore, determined the value of the land of the appellant to Rs. 3,000/- per sq. yds meaning thereby that it declined to grant any escalation over and above Rs. 3,000/- for the gap of three years period from 1984 to 1987.
3. Mr. Sumit Bansal has made a vehement plea before us that the land of the appellants is situated in the same advantageous position as the land of Ram Lal Bansiwal which was acquired in the year 1984 because appellants were running a business/industry of re-treading of tyres at the time of its acquisition for which they had obtained a licence from the Municipal Corporation. It is also stated that the land of the appellants cannot be equated with the land of Nasir Ali though acquired by the same notification because the land of Nasir Ali was locked between two Railway lines and has this grave disadvantage.
4. We have seen the relevant map/site plan of the lands showing the situation of the lands of Ram Lal Bansiwal, Nasir Ali and that of the appellants. The land of the appellants is contiguous to the land of Nasir Ali, there being only a boundary wall in between while the land of Ram Lal Bansiwal is at quite some distance and on the main road. By no stretch, the appellants can claim parity with the land of Ram Lal Bansiwal which was acquired in the year 1984. In our considered opinion, the appellants can only claim parity with the land of the Nasir Ali which is not only contiguous to the land of the appellants, but was acquired by means of same notification and for the same purpose. Besides, it is a well-established proposition that in determination of the market value of the acquired land, the court has to first see if there is evidence of the value of the acquired land itself available on record and then it is unnecessary to travel beyond that evidence and consider the market value prevailing in the adjacent land. This has been so held by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3557/1984 decided on 23.11.1995 in the case of Shakuntalabai (Smt.) and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra. We therefore, see no reason to depart from this principal and have no hesitation in holding that the case of the appellants is squarely covered by an earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Nasir Ali v. Union of India (Supra) decided on 25.9.1998 thereby fixing the value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per sq. yds. This will be the correct assessment of the market value of the appellants' land.
5. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and the market value of the appellants' land is assessed at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per sq. yds. Appellants shall be entitled to all other statutory benefits in terms of the order of the learned Additional District Judge on this enhanced amount of Rs. 3,000/- per sq. yd. Appellants shall also be entitled to proportionate costs.
Alert