Nand Kishore v. Union Of India.

Arun Kumar, J.— This appeal and the batch of connected appeals pertain to village Mehrauli which is located towards the south of the capital city of New Delhi. We have heard all the appeals together since they pertain to land in the same village. The only point of distinction between the different batches in the date of the notification under section 4 of the land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Various appeals pertain to notifications under section 4 of the Act starting with the notification dated 13th November 1959 which is subject-matter of this appeal, followed by similar notifications under section 4 dated 24th October 1961, 23rd January 1965, 8th September 1971, 15th September 1971 and 21st November 1978. Broadly the market value of the land has been fixed by the Land Acquisition Collectors and the Additional District Judges in references under section 18 of the Act as follows:—

S.NoAward No.Date of NotificationCompensation awarded by:u/sec.4u/sec.6L.A.C (Rs.)Add. Distt. Judge (Rs.)1.83/82-83 25.3.198313.11.597.12.662200/-) 2000/-) PB 1700/-) 1200/-)2750/-) 2500/-) PB 2125/-)2.75/83-84 9.12.8324.10.614.1.691480/- PB6445/- PB3.1971/67 29.4.6723.1.6511.4.6610000/-) 5000/-) PB13200/- PB for all lands4.80/70-71 8.1.8123.1.657.12.663200/- A) 1000/- B) 250/- C)5100/- A) PB5.80-E 70-71 8.1.8123.1.657.12.661700/- A) 500/- B)5100/-) PB 3000/-)Page: 1606.17/72-73 28.6.728.9.718.9.712600/- A) 850/- B)4800/) PB7.27/72-73 30.8.7215.9.7115.9.712600/-4800/- PB8.8/80-81 9.4.8021.11.7821.11.782890/-12000/- PB

In the present appeal the appellant sought further enhancement of compensation praying that market value of the land on the relevant date be fixed at Rs. 6,000/- per bigha. During the pendency of the appeal an application has been moved (CM. 397 OF 1998) praying that the appellant be permitted to enhance the claim from Rs. 6,000/- per bigha to Rs. 12,000/- per bigha. The balance requisite court fee has been paid. This Court has been consistently taking the view allowing such prayer for amendment. Accordingly the amendment application is allowed and the appellant is permitted to seek compensation @ Rs. 12,000/- per bigha.

In the other appeals enhanced compensation is being claimed depending on the date of the notification under section 4 of the Act in each case.

The principles for determination of market value of land under acquisition are well settled. The market value of the land has to be determined in each case as on the date of the notification under section 4. It was observed by the Supreme Court in K. Posayya & Ors. v. Special Tehsildar, AIR 1995 SC 1641:—

“Market value cannot be fixed with mathematical precision but must be based on sound discretion exercised by the reference court in arriving at just and reasonable price. It should not be based on feats of imagination or flight of fancy. Determination of compensation for compulsory acquisition involves consideration of the price which a hypothetical willing purchaser can be expected to pay for the lands in the existing use as well as relatable potentialities. The acid test is the arm chair of the willing vendor would offer and a prudent willing buyer, taking all relevant prevailing conditions of the normal market, fertility of the land, location, suitability of the purpose it was purchased, its existing potentialities and likely use to which the land is capable of being put in the same condition would offer to pay the price, as on the date of the notification. In case of acquisition of large tracts of lands for projects situated in several villages, stray sale-deed of small extent here and there would not form the basis to determine the compensation. The reference court should be circumspect, pragmatic and careful in analysing the evidence and arriving at just and fair market value of the lands under acquisition which could be fetched on the date of the notification.

The owner or claimant should not be put to loss by undervaluation. But, at the same time public exchequer should not be put to undue burden by excess valuation. It is the statutory duty of the Court to maintain the balance between diverse interest.”

Page: 161Unfortunately in the present batch of cases there is no evidence by way of sale deeds which could show the prevailing market price of the land at the given time. The market value of the land, therefore, has to be determined on the basis of various other parameters. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has urged that the market value of the acquired land in these cases must be determined keeping in view the following facts:—

1. The lands have great potential value as building sites. The entire Mehrauli area had been urbanised and there was lot of building activity in the area right from the year 1960 onwards.

2. Rising trend in the market value of the land during the entire period under consideration.

3. Market value of land as determined by this court in adjoining villages.

Before we proceed to discuss the above aspects we would like to note that vide judgement dated 23rd July 1963 a Division Bench of this Court in RFA 83-D of 1960, entitled Union of India v. Diwan Chand, fixed the market value of the land in the same area, i.e Mehrauli at Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 6000/- per bigha depending upon the location of the land for a notification under section 4 of the Act dated 25th July 1956. In the cases in hand the notifications under section 4 are of dates varying between 13th November 1959 and 21st November 1978 as noticed earlier. This determination of market value of land in the area under consideration can provide the basis for arriving at the market value of the land as on the dates of the various notifications under section 4 of the Act involved in these cases.

There is yet another decision of this Court dated 2nd February 1994 in R.FA 481 of 1970, Nathu Singh v. Union Of India, which pertains to a notification under section 4 of the Act dated 3rd November 1959. In this case the market value of the land at the relevant date was fixed at Rs. 5000/- per bigha. But this case cannot serve as any guide for the present purpose because the claim of the claimant was restricted to Rs. 5000/- per bigha and the court could not go beyond the said figure.

Coming to the aspect about the potential value of the land as a building site it is first to be noted that Mehrauli had a Notified Area Committee which is apparent from Notifications No. F 8(8)/54-LSG (ii) and F. 8(8)/54-LSG containing the names of the members of the Notified Area Committee. From these notifications it is clear that in the year 1957 Mehrauli had a Notified Area Committee. The entire village Mehrauli was urbanised by notification No. RNZ/526 dated 23rd May 1963. These notifications show that the entire village Mehrauli had the potentiality of being used as building site. Potentiality of land would mean such uses to which it can be put in the near future. It was held by this court in Amar Singh v. Union of India. AIR 1985 Delhi 298 that “Potentiality is a right and proper subject for consideration in ascertaining the compensation to be paid on expropriation. Prospects and possibilities of future development ought to be taken into account in determining the price to be paid for property compulsorily acquired”. Thus for determining the market value of the land under acquisition the Court does not go by the actual use to which the land was being put at the time of the notification under section 4. The Court has to see the better use to which it is reasonably capable of being put in the immediate or near future. If the Page: 162acquired land has the building potentiality, it should necessarily be taken into account for determining its market value. In determining building potentiality several factors come into consideration, such as the fact that there was a Notified Area Committee in the area much before the date of the notification under section 4 of the Act; the suitability of the acquired land for purposes of being used as building site; availability of water and electric supply in the area; accessibility to the land by way of roads and path ways etc. Most of these things were available in Mehrauli at the relevant time. Keeping this in view we are of the opinion that the land under acquisition had good building potentiality at the relevant time and it continued to enjoy this advantage during the entire period under consideration in the present batch of appeals':

The next point for consideration is the rising trend in the market price of land during the relevant period. Though there is no evidence as such available on record of such cases by way of sale transactions during the relevant period which could show the market trend, this Court has in various cases taken judicial notice of this fact. In LPA 70 of 1980, decided on 24th August 1983 entitled R.N Tikku v. Union of India, this Court noticed a rising trend in price of land from the year 1955 onwards at the rate of about Rs. 3/- per year. This rate of rise was considered a little on the higher side by another Division Bench of this Court in Amar Singh (supra) but it was accepted that there was a rising trend in prices of lands during the period in question. Again in RFA 290 of 1980, Mohan & Anr. v. Union of India decided on 8th April 1987, it was considered that a rise at the rate of Re. 1/- per sq.yd per year could be a reasonable basis to take care of the rising trend in market prices. Thus this Court has consistently taken the view that there was a rising trend in market prices of land in Delhi during the relevant period.

Coming to the last point raised on behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel has drawn our attention to certain decisions of this Court wherein the market value of land in areas adjoining Mehrauli has been fixed during the relevant period ranging between Rs. 10,000/- per bigha to Rs. 15,000/- per bigha. However, the counsel has not been able to produce the Aks Shajra of the area which could show the exact location of the lands in the adjoining villages. The question may arise whether these lands enjoyed any unique location advantage. In the absence of the Aks Shajra correct position cannot be ascertained. Still these judgments provide some guidance.

Keeping all relevant factors in view we have no hesitation in holding that lands subject matter of the present batch of appeals did enjoy good potential value as building sites. Urbanisation had started in the area during the relevant period. A Notified Area Committee had come up during the mid-fifties. We also accept the fact that there was a rising trend in the market value of land in the area during the relevant period. The trend continued during the entire period under consideration.

Before we finally express ourselves on the actual price as on the dates of the various notifications under section 4 which are under consideration, we would like to note a decision of the Supreme Court in Gokal v. State Of Haryana., AIR 1992 SC 150, wherein also no evidence by way of sale transactions during the relevant period was available. The Supreme Court took as a starting point for purpose of determining market price of the land another judgment of the same Court in which for a notifications Page: 163under section 4 dated 31st October 1974, the market value of land in the same area was fixed at the rate of Rs. 17,500/- per bigha. The subsequent notification under section 4 of the Act which came up for consideration were of:—20th March 1975; 26th. May 1976; 3rd September 1976 and 6th January 1978. Keeping the rising trend in market price of land in view, the market price was fixed at Rs. 20/-; Rs. 25/-. Rs. 26/- and Rs. 30/- per sq.yd respectively with respect to each notification involved. We are of the view that this case provides a good guide to us for fixing the market price for various notification under consideration in this batch of appeals. We fix the same as under:—

Date of notification under section 4Amount13th November 1959Rs. 10,000/- per bigha24th October 1961Rs. 12,000/- per bigha23rd January 1965Rs. 16,000/- per bigha8th September 1971Rs. 22,5001- per bigha21st November 1978Rs. 30,0001-per bigha

Besides the compensation at the enhanced market price determined by us, the landowners will also be entitled to the other statutory benefits as applicable in each: case. The appellants will also be entitled to proportionate costs.

In the present case the appellant is entitled to compensation at the rate of: Rs. 10,000/- per bigha. Besides this the appellant will get solatium at the rate of 30 per cent on the market value and interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date the Collector took possession of the land till expiry of one year from that date and thereafter at the rate of 15 per cent per annum till the date of payment. Since there is a difference of more than three years betweern section 4 notification and section 6 declaration, the appellant will also be en titled to further interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. The appellant will also be entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum under sectioin 23 (IA) of the Act on the market value of land from the date of notification under section 4 till the date of award of the Collector or the date of taking over possession of the land, whichever is earlier.

The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above with proportionate costs.