SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Delhi Development Authority
Vs.
Bali Ram Sharma
(Shivraj V.Patil and B.N.Srikrishna JJ.)
03.08.2004
JUDGMENT
Shivaraj V. Patil, J.
1. In Special Leave Petitions delay condoned and leave granted.
2. A Notification dated 17.11.1980 was issued under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') for acquisition of vast lands
in three villages, viz., Kondli, Gharoli and Dallupura for planned development
of Delhi. The Land Acquisition Collector fixed market value of the lands in
question on the basis of sale transactions that took place during the relevant
period, @ Rs. 8,500/- per bigha. The claimants were not satisfied with the
amount of compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector and they sought
reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Additional District Judge, Delhi
(reference court), by judgment, enhanced the compensation fixing the market
value @ Rs. 76,550 per bigha. Still not satisfied the claimants filed appeals
before the High Court of Delhi. The High Court allowed their appeals fixing the
market value @ Rs. 345/ - per sq. yard, which amounts to Rs. 3,45,000/-. While
doing so the High Court took into consideration post 4(1) Notification
transactions of other lands situated away from village Kondli and schedule of rates
notified by the Central Government in respect of lands in the locality. In
Union of India and Delhi Development Authority have filed these appeals
aggrieved by the enhanced rate of compensation made by the High Court in the
impugned judgments.
3. The learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellants, argued that the
High Court was not right and justified in enhancing the compensation from Rs.
76,550/- per bigha to Rs. 3,45,000/- per bigha, relying on post 4(1)
Notification transactions and also Government schedule of rates, which were not
accepted in earlier cases covering the other lands under the very Notification;
the High Court also was not right in not following the decision of this Court
in Karan Singh and others vs. Union of India 9), covering the lands
acquired under the very same Notification, particularly, when the evidence and
material placed on record in that case were almost identical. According to the
learned counsel it may not be necessary to consider the evidence, material and
the contentions of the parties again in these cases when the matter in
concluded by the judgment of this Court in Karan Singh and others (supra),
which affirmed the judgment of the High Court in fixing the market value of the
lands @ Rs, 76,550/- per bigha.
4. Per contra the learned counsel for the respondents-claimants argued at
length to justify the amount of compensation awarded under the impugned
judgments. The learned counsel sought to distinguish the case of Karan Singh
aforementioned on the ground that the evidence in these cases is different and
the lands were not comparable. When confronted with the order made by the
reference court in these very cases that the evidence and material placed on
record in Karan Singh's case are almost identical or similar to these cases on
hand, the learned counsel were not in a position to pursue their arguments any
further. In the order in LAC No. 144/90 the reference court in Karan Singh and
others vs. Union of India referred to the case of Bali Ram Sharma, who is respondent
in Civil Appeal No. 6767 of 2002, and observed that the evidence produced in
Karan Singh's case is exactly similar to evidence lead in LAC No. 142/90 titled
as Bali Ram Sharma vs. Union of India. This is the position in respect of other
appeals also. This being the position, the learned counsel for the respondents
were not in a position to say anything further. They were not able to
substantiate that the case of Karan Singh (supra) does not apply to these
appeals.
5. Having regard to the undisputed facts and the material placed on record and
in the light of judgment of this Court in Karan Singh's case, it is not
possible for us to take a different view as regards market value of the lands
covered by the same Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. Under
these circumstances these appeals are entitled to succeed. They are
accordingly allowed and the impugned judgments are modified by reducing the
amount of compensation from Rs. 345/- per sq. yard (amounting to Rs. 3,45,000/-
per bigha) to Rs. 76,550/- per bigha. The impugned judgments stand modified
accordingly so far they concern to fixation of market value making it clear
that the respondents are entitled to statutory benefits available under the Act
based on the amount of compensation as modified above. No costs.
C.A. No. 6772 of 2002, 4885, 4890, 4888, 4891, 4895 & 4899 of 2004 (@
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 15709 of 2004 (CC 6031/2002), 11882, 11336,
11714, 11715 and 11727 of 2003) and C. A. No. 135 of 2004.
6. The lands, which are the subject-matter of these appeals are acquired for
the same purpose as in the aforementioned appeals, but the Notification under
Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 25.2.1981, i.e. subsequent to 4(1)
Notification dated 17.11.1980. Obviously, there would be escalation of prices
in regard to these lands. Hence, we think it just and appropriate to give 5%
increase in the market value in respect of the lands in these appeals. In the
result these appeals are also allowed and the impugned judgments are modified by
reducing the amount of compensation from Rs. 345/- per sq. yard (amounting to
Rs. 3, 45,000/- per bigha) to Rs. 76,550/- per bigha + 5% escalation. The
respondents are entitled to statutory benefits available under the Act based on
the amount of compensation as modified above. No costs.
Civil Appeal No. 4157 of 2003
7. The land, which is the subject-matter of this appeal is acquired for the
same purpose as in the aforementioned appeals, but the Notification under
Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 24.11.1981, i.e. subsequent to 4(1)
Notification dated 17.11.1980. Obviously, there would be escalation of price in
regard to this land. Hence, we think it just and appropriate to give 10%
increase in the market value in respect of the land in this appeal. In the
result this appeal is also allowed and the impugned judgment is modified by
reducing the amount of compensation from Rs. 345/- per sq. yard (amounting to
Rs. 3,45,000/- per bigha) to Rs. 76,550/- per bigha + 10% escalation. The
respondent is entitled to statutory benefits available under the Act based on
the amount of compensation as modified above. No costs.