Order
1. Applications for substitution are allowed.
2. The application of Delhi Development Authority for impleadment is allowed.
3. Delay condoned.
4. Leave granted.
5. This bunch of appeals arise out of the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in land acquisition proceedings. A vast stretch of land measuring 5484 bighas in Revenue Village Poothkalan on the outskirts of Delhi was acquired by issuance of a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 11-12-1981. The Land Acquisition Collector determined the market value of the acquired land by dividing the same into three blocks and awarded compensation for Block A at the rate of Rs 12,100 per bigha, for Block B at the rate of Rs 12,000 per bigha and for Block C at the rate of Rs 6000 per bigha. The claimants not being satisfied, made an application for reference under Section 18 and the Reference Court standardised the valuation and then relying upon several sale transactions, found out an average and determined the market value at the rate of Rs 15,700 per bigha in one case and at the rate of Rs 18,500 per bigha in another case. The claimants assailed the said valuation by preferring an appeal before the High Court. The High Court under the impugned judgment did not rely upon the theory of average as was done by the Reference Court. Several sale transactions were not taken into consideration on the ground that they do not inspire any confidence but, however, relying upon an individual transaction dated 10-9-1981 which was exhibited as Exhibit A-1 and under which one bigha of land had been sold in the same village on 10-9-1981, enhanced the market value to Rs 30,000 per bigha. It is this determination which is the subject-matter of challenge in this bunch of appeals. The claimants have also come up in cross-appeals for further enhancement of the market value.
6. On behalf of the Union of India it is contended that Exhibit A-1, which is a sale transaction in respect of a small bit of land measuring one bigha, could not be the basis for determination of the market value of a vast stretch of land measuring 5484 bighas and if that is taken out of consideration, then there is no residue of evidence on which the determination made by the High Court could be sustained. Mr Dinesh Dwivedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand contended that though the Reference Court and the High Court have rejected several sale transactions on the ground that the sale transactions do not inspire any confidence but have not indicated any reasons. He further contended that in respect of the same village there has been an award which had culminated in the judgment of the High Court awarding higher compensation and that should be looked into for the purpose of disposal of these appeals. That award had not been produced before the High Court in the case in hand nor was it before the Reference Court also; though an application for taking that as additional evidence has been filed in this Court. Contemporaneous award no doubt is a useful guide for every court to determine the market value but that award must be taken into evidence in accordance with law by giving an opportunity to the other side for rebutting the same and that had not been done in the case in hand. It is not possible to look into the additional evidence for coming to any conclusion as to whether the market value as determined by the High Court is sustainable or not. Leaving aside the so-called award, if we examine the impugned judgment of the High Court, we have no other evidence other than Exhibit A-1 which was a sale transaction of 10-9-1981 in respect of one bigha of land and the price therein was Rs 30,000 per bigha. It has been held in a catena of decisions of this Court that the sale price in respect of a small bit of transaction would not be the determinative factor for deciding the market value of a vast stretch of land. As has been stated earlier, the extent of land acquired in the case in hand i.e 5484 bighas. In that view of the matter, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High Court has wholly erred in relying upon Exhibit A-1 in determining the market value of the acquired land extending to 5484 bighas. Since the onus is on the claimant to lead evidence on the determination of market value and if Exhibit A-1 is taken out of consideration, then there is no residue of evidence on which the determination made by the High Court enhancing the compensation awarded by the Reference Court could be sustained. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and affirm the market value as determined by the Reference Court. These appeals are allowed. Cross-appeals filed by the claimants are dismissed.