Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% LA.APP.NO. 23 of 2005
th
+ Date of Decision: 8 April, 2011
# SWARN SINGH .....Appellant
! Through: Mr. Shasinder Tripathi, Mr. S.K. Verma
& Mr. R.K. Pandey, Advocates.
Versus
$ UOI & ANR. ....Respondents
^ Through: Mr. Ramesh Ray, Advocate for UOI/R-1
Mr. Puneet Taneja, Advocate for NTPC/R-2
WITH
% LA.APP. NO.27 of 2005
# ARJUN SINGH .....Appellant
! Through: Mr. Shasinder Tripathi, Mr. S.K. Verma
& Mr. R.K. Pandey, Advocates.
Versus
$ UOI & ANR. ....Respondents
^ Through: Mr. Ramesh Ray, Advocate for UOI/R-1
Mr. Puneet Taneja, Advocate for NTPC/R-2
WITH
LA.APP. NOS. 23, 27, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51 AND 53 OF 2005 Page 1 of 7
% LA.APP. NO. 46 of 2005
# NIADAR SINGH THROUGH LRs. ..........Appellants
! Through: Mr. Shasinder Tripathi, Mr. S.K. Verma
& Mr. R.K. Pandey, Advocates.
Versus
$ UOI & ANR. ....Respondents
^ Through: Mr. Ramesh Ray, Advocate for UOI/R-1
Mr. Puneet Taneja, Advocate for NTPC/R-2
WITH
% LA.APP. NO. 48 of 2005
# TAHLA SINGH .....Appellant
! Through: Mr. Shasinder Tripathi, Mr. S.K. Verma
& Mr. R.K. Pandey, Advocates.
Versus
$ UOI & ANR. ....Respondents
^ Through: Mr. Ramesh Ray, Advocate for UOI/R-1
Mr. Puneet Taneja, Advocate for NTPC/R-2
WITH
% LA.APP. NO. 49 of 2005
# SMT . KRISHNA ..........Appellant
! Through: Mr. Shasinder Tripathi, Mr. S.K. Verma
& Mr. R.K. Pandey, Advocates.
Versus
$ UOI & ANR. ....Respondents
^ Through: Mr. Ramesh Ray, Advocate for UOI/R-1
Mr. Puneet Taneja, Advocate for NTPC/R-2
LA.APP. NOS. 23, 27, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51 AND 53 OF 2005 Page 2 of 7
WITH
% LA.APP. NO. 50 of 2005
# THAKUR SINGH .....Appellant
! Through: Mr. Shasinder Tripathi, Mr. S.K. Verma
& Mr. R.K. Pandey, Advocates.
Versus
$ UOI & ANR. ....Respondents
^ Through: Mr. Ramesh Ray, Advocate for UOI/R-1
Mr. Puneet Taneja, Advocate for NTPC/R-2
WITH
% LA.APP. NO. 51 of 2005
# MOHAR SINGH .....Appellant
! Through: Mr. Shasinder Tripathi, Mr. S.K. Verma
& Mr. R.K. Pandey, Advocates.
Versus
$ UOI & ANR. ....Respondents
^ Through: Mr. Ramesh Ray, Advocate for UOI/R-1
Mr. Puneet Taneja, Advocate for NTPC/R-2
AND
% LA.APP. NO. 53 of 2005
# UJAGAR SINGH THROUGH LRs ..........Appellants
! Through: Mr. Shasinder Tripathi, Mr. S.K. Verma
& Mr. R.K. Pandey, Advocates.
Versus
$ UOI & ANR. ....Respondents
LA.APP. NOS. 23, 27, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51 AND 53 OF 2005 Page 3 of 7
^ Through: Mr. Ramesh Ray, Advocate for UOI/R-1
Mr. Puneet Taneja, Advocate for NTPC/R-2
CORAM :
* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?(No)
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?(No)
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?(No)
JUDGMENT
P.K.BHASIN, J
These eight appeals arise out of the judgments of the learned
Reference Court in respect of different References made by the Land
Acquisition Collector under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act(‘the
Act’ in short) in respect of the lands belonging to the appellants in village
Jaitpur acquired vide Award No.1/1994-95 pursuant to notification
dated 16/10/1992 under Section 4 of the Act.Since same points were
involved in all the appeals they were heard together and now are being
disposed of also together by this common judgment.
2. Vide award no.1/94-95 dated 26/03/93 the Land Acquisition
Collector(LAC) fixed the market value of the acquired lands of the
appellants herein in village Jaitpur @ Rs.96,875/- lacs per bigha.
Dissatisfied with the said land rate fixed by the LAC, the landowners-
LA.APP. NOS. 23, 27, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51 AND 53 OF 2005 Page 4 of 7
appellants got references made to the District Judge under section 18 of
the Act. The learned Reference Court assessed the market value of the
lands in question at Rs.6,51,000/- per acre by giving increase @ 12%
p.a. upon the market value of the land in the same village fixed in respect
of earlier notification dated 02/06/89 at Rs.4,65,000/- per acre which was
treated as the base rate. The learned Reference Court did not accept the
sale deeds/awards/judgements relied upon by the appellants pertaining to
other villages on the ground that those villages were far away from
village Jaitpur.
3. The appellants were not satisfied with the market value of their
lands determined by the learned Reference Court also and so they
approached this Court by filing the present appeals under Section 54 of
the Act and have claimed fixation of the market value of their acquired
lands @ Rs.300/- per sq.yd.
4. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the
learned Reference Court was not justified in discarding the
judgments/awards/sale deeds in respect of other villages. However, when
asked to show from the records as to how the findings of the Reference
Court that the villages involved in those cases were miles away from the
village involved in the present appeals were wrong the counsel could not
LA.APP. NOS. 23, 27, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51 AND 53 OF 2005 Page 5 of 7
point out anything to the contrary. Therefore, I find no reason to upset the
decision of the learned Reference Court in not placing any reliance on the
documentary evidence of market rates of lands of other villages produced
by the appellants on the ground that those villages were miles away from
Jaitpur.
5. It was then submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that
in any event the reference court should have given increase in the market
value fixed @ Rs. 5,20,800/- per acre in respect of the lands acquired in
Jaitpur village vide subsequent notification dated 30/05/90. Learned
counsel for the respondents did not dispute the fact that the market value
th
of the land in village Jaitpur acquired vide notification dated 30 May,
1990 was fixed at Rs. 5,20,800/- per acre by the Reference Court.
Therefore, taking judicial notice of the fact that during the era of nineties
land rates in Delhi were rising phenomenally, the learned Reference
Court should have taken the market value of Rs. 5,20,9800/- as the base
rate while fixing the market value in respect of notification dated
16/10/92 by giving 12% increase thereon. In that way, the market value
of the land of the appellants works out to be Rs. 6,69,228/- per acre.
6. These appeals, therefore, stand disposed of by fixing the market
value of the land of the appellants in these appeals at Rs. 6,69,228/- per
LA.APP. NOS. 23, 27, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51 AND 53 OF 2005 Page 6 of 7
acre on which the appellants shall also be entitled to all the statutory
benefits which already stand granted to them by the learned Reference
Court. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
P.K. BHASIN,J
April 08, 2011
LA.APP. NOS. 23, 27, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51 AND 53 OF 2005 Page 7 of 7
% LA.APP.NO. 23 of 2005
th
+ Date of Decision: 8 April, 2011
# SWARN SINGH .....Appellant
! Through: Mr. Shasinder Tripathi, Mr. S.K. Verma
& Mr. R.K. Pandey, Advocates.
Versus
$ UOI & ANR. ....Respondents
^ Through: Mr. Ramesh Ray, Advocate for UOI/R-1
Mr. Puneet Taneja, Advocate for NTPC/R-2
WITH
% LA.APP. NO.27 of 2005
# ARJUN SINGH .....Appellant
! Through: Mr. Shasinder Tripathi, Mr. S.K. Verma
& Mr. R.K. Pandey, Advocates.
Versus
$ UOI & ANR. ....Respondents
^ Through: Mr. Ramesh Ray, Advocate for UOI/R-1
Mr. Puneet Taneja, Advocate for NTPC/R-2
WITH
LA.APP. NOS. 23, 27, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51 AND 53 OF 2005 Page 1 of 7
% LA.APP. NO. 46 of 2005
# NIADAR SINGH THROUGH LRs. ..........Appellants
! Through: Mr. Shasinder Tripathi, Mr. S.K. Verma
& Mr. R.K. Pandey, Advocates.
Versus
$ UOI & ANR. ....Respondents
^ Through: Mr. Ramesh Ray, Advocate for UOI/R-1
Mr. Puneet Taneja, Advocate for NTPC/R-2
WITH
% LA.APP. NO. 48 of 2005
# TAHLA SINGH .....Appellant
! Through: Mr. Shasinder Tripathi, Mr. S.K. Verma
& Mr. R.K. Pandey, Advocates.
Versus
$ UOI & ANR. ....Respondents
^ Through: Mr. Ramesh Ray, Advocate for UOI/R-1
Mr. Puneet Taneja, Advocate for NTPC/R-2
WITH
% LA.APP. NO. 49 of 2005
# SMT . KRISHNA ..........Appellant
! Through: Mr. Shasinder Tripathi, Mr. S.K. Verma
& Mr. R.K. Pandey, Advocates.
Versus
$ UOI & ANR. ....Respondents
^ Through: Mr. Ramesh Ray, Advocate for UOI/R-1
Mr. Puneet Taneja, Advocate for NTPC/R-2
LA.APP. NOS. 23, 27, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51 AND 53 OF 2005 Page 2 of 7
WITH
% LA.APP. NO. 50 of 2005
# THAKUR SINGH .....Appellant
! Through: Mr. Shasinder Tripathi, Mr. S.K. Verma
& Mr. R.K. Pandey, Advocates.
Versus
$ UOI & ANR. ....Respondents
^ Through: Mr. Ramesh Ray, Advocate for UOI/R-1
Mr. Puneet Taneja, Advocate for NTPC/R-2
WITH
% LA.APP. NO. 51 of 2005
# MOHAR SINGH .....Appellant
! Through: Mr. Shasinder Tripathi, Mr. S.K. Verma
& Mr. R.K. Pandey, Advocates.
Versus
$ UOI & ANR. ....Respondents
^ Through: Mr. Ramesh Ray, Advocate for UOI/R-1
Mr. Puneet Taneja, Advocate for NTPC/R-2
AND
% LA.APP. NO. 53 of 2005
# UJAGAR SINGH THROUGH LRs ..........Appellants
! Through: Mr. Shasinder Tripathi, Mr. S.K. Verma
& Mr. R.K. Pandey, Advocates.
Versus
$ UOI & ANR. ....Respondents
LA.APP. NOS. 23, 27, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51 AND 53 OF 2005 Page 3 of 7
^ Through: Mr. Ramesh Ray, Advocate for UOI/R-1
Mr. Puneet Taneja, Advocate for NTPC/R-2
CORAM :
* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?(No)
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?(No)
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?(No)
JUDGMENT
P.K.BHASIN, J
These eight appeals arise out of the judgments of the learned
Reference Court in respect of different References made by the Land
Acquisition Collector under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act(‘the
Act’ in short) in respect of the lands belonging to the appellants in village
Jaitpur acquired vide Award No.1/1994-95 pursuant to notification
dated 16/10/1992 under Section 4 of the Act.Since same points were
involved in all the appeals they were heard together and now are being
disposed of also together by this common judgment.
2. Vide award no.1/94-95 dated 26/03/93 the Land Acquisition
Collector(LAC) fixed the market value of the acquired lands of the
appellants herein in village Jaitpur @ Rs.96,875/- lacs per bigha.
Dissatisfied with the said land rate fixed by the LAC, the landowners-
LA.APP. NOS. 23, 27, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51 AND 53 OF 2005 Page 4 of 7
appellants got references made to the District Judge under section 18 of
the Act. The learned Reference Court assessed the market value of the
lands in question at Rs.6,51,000/- per acre by giving increase @ 12%
p.a. upon the market value of the land in the same village fixed in respect
of earlier notification dated 02/06/89 at Rs.4,65,000/- per acre which was
treated as the base rate. The learned Reference Court did not accept the
sale deeds/awards/judgements relied upon by the appellants pertaining to
other villages on the ground that those villages were far away from
village Jaitpur.
3. The appellants were not satisfied with the market value of their
lands determined by the learned Reference Court also and so they
approached this Court by filing the present appeals under Section 54 of
the Act and have claimed fixation of the market value of their acquired
lands @ Rs.300/- per sq.yd.
4. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the
learned Reference Court was not justified in discarding the
judgments/awards/sale deeds in respect of other villages. However, when
asked to show from the records as to how the findings of the Reference
Court that the villages involved in those cases were miles away from the
village involved in the present appeals were wrong the counsel could not
LA.APP. NOS. 23, 27, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51 AND 53 OF 2005 Page 5 of 7
point out anything to the contrary. Therefore, I find no reason to upset the
decision of the learned Reference Court in not placing any reliance on the
documentary evidence of market rates of lands of other villages produced
by the appellants on the ground that those villages were miles away from
Jaitpur.
5. It was then submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that
in any event the reference court should have given increase in the market
value fixed @ Rs. 5,20,800/- per acre in respect of the lands acquired in
Jaitpur village vide subsequent notification dated 30/05/90. Learned
counsel for the respondents did not dispute the fact that the market value
th
of the land in village Jaitpur acquired vide notification dated 30 May,
1990 was fixed at Rs. 5,20,800/- per acre by the Reference Court.
Therefore, taking judicial notice of the fact that during the era of nineties
land rates in Delhi were rising phenomenally, the learned Reference
Court should have taken the market value of Rs. 5,20,9800/- as the base
rate while fixing the market value in respect of notification dated
16/10/92 by giving 12% increase thereon. In that way, the market value
of the land of the appellants works out to be Rs. 6,69,228/- per acre.
6. These appeals, therefore, stand disposed of by fixing the market
value of the land of the appellants in these appeals at Rs. 6,69,228/- per
LA.APP. NOS. 23, 27, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51 AND 53 OF 2005 Page 6 of 7
acre on which the appellants shall also be entitled to all the statutory
benefits which already stand granted to them by the learned Reference
Court. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
P.K. BHASIN,J
April 08, 2011
LA.APP. NOS. 23, 27, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51 AND 53 OF 2005 Page 7 of 7