Om Prakash (D) by Lrs. vs Union of India

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2004 Supreme(SC) 797

2004(6) Supreme 1
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Delhi High Court)
Shivaraj V. Patil & B.N. Srikrishna, JJ.
Om Prakash (D) by Lrs. & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Union of India & Anr. -Responde nts
Civil Appeal No. 5708 of 2002
With
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : S.K. Dubey, N.N. Goswami, H.L. Agarwal and P.N. Misra, Sr. Advocates, Shekhar Prit Jha, Indra Sawhney, Ms. Rekha Pandey, Ms. Anjani Aiyagari, Ms. Niranjana Singh, Ms. Anil Katiyar, D.S. Mahra, Vishnu B. Saharya, R.M. Patnaik, Shibashish Misra, Ajit Pudussery and Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Advocates.

Headnote:Civil Appeal Nos. 5709 of 2002, 8591-8592 of 2003 and Civil Appeal No. 4986 of 2004 @ SLP (C) No. 21335 of 2002, Civil Appeal No. 4991 of 2004 @ SLP (C) No. 21342 of 2002, Civil Appeal No. 4990 of 2004 @ SLP (C) No. 23385 of 2002, Civil Appeal No. 4989 of 2004 @ SLP (C) No. 1632 of 2003, Civil Appeal No. 4987 of 2004 @ SLP (C) No. 12968 of 2003 and Civil Appeal No. 4988 of
        2004 @ SLP (C) No. 21343 of 2002
       Decided on 5-8-2004
       Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 4, 6 and 54-Compensation for lands acquired-Determination of-Villages located side by side where lands being used for agricultural purposes and for purposes subservient thereto-Modification of master plan for Delhi-Acquisition of lands by notification dated 2-6-1983, for public purpose of construction of godowns for food Corporation of India-Compensation awarded by Collector categorizing the lands falling for acquisition into three blocks-Reference-Enhancement of market value of acquired lands to a uniform rate of Rs. 36,300/- per bigha -Appeal-High Court assessed market value of lands of claimants at Rs. 82,255/- per bigha-High Court working out fair market value of lands on basis of market value of Rs. 16,750/- per bigha as on 30-10-1963 fixed in case of Dharambir case-High Court held justified in assessing the market value at a higher rate on account of some increased potentiality of the lands.
       Held : In the circumstances, the High Court was justified in working out the fair market value of the lands in question on the basis of Rs. 16,750/- per bigha as on 30.10.1963. The High Court noticed that in several judgments of this Court escalation at different and varying rates i.e. 6% per annum from 1959 to 1965, @ 10% per annum for every year from 1966 to 1973 and @ 12% per annum from 1975 had been considered to be reasonable increase to arrive at the fair market value, assuming that the pace of escalation during this period was normal for the entire period from 1959 onwards. Since no material was placed on record to show that there was any abnormality during the period, the High Court applied the same principle to the facts and circumstances before it, and accepted increase of 10% every year progressively from 1963 to 1973 and thereafter @ 12% every year progressively upto the date of acquisition. The High Court notified in the judgment that if escalation is allowed on this basis, the fair market value would be Rs. 1,28,889/- per bigha. In case progressive increase is allowed @ 10% for the entire period, the amount will work out to Rs. 1,08,397/- per bigha. Allowing appreciation @ 12% for every year, not cumulatively, but at a flat rate of 12% per annum from 1963 to 1983, the amount would work out to Rs. 56,112/- per bigha. The High Court in its judgment under appeal pointed out that the market value of Rs. 16,750/- per bigha fixed in the case of Dharambir & Ors. vs. Union of India was not in respect of commercial land but only of agricultural land. That the market value of agricultural land is much lower than that of land suitable for commercial purposes, is trite. After having worked out the market value of the lands on various bases and keeping in view the fact that between 8.12.1982 and 2.6.1983, the lands in question had at least some commercial potentiality, the High Court decided that the fair market value of all categories of lands situated in the villages in question as on the date of acquisition should be fixed at Rs. 82,255/- per bigha. (Para 11)

JUDGMENT

Srikrishna, J.-Leave granted in the special leave petitions.

2. These appeals are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in appeals filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) for determining the compensation payable for certain lands acquired under the provisions of the Act.

3. Villages Bhorgarh, Kureni and Mamurpur are located side by side and the lands situated in these villages were used for agricultural purposes or purposes subservient thereto. Under the provisions of Sections 22 and 23 of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 there were certain restrictions on land usage due to which the lands could only be used for agriculture, horticulture, animal husbandry and allied uses. In the master plan the lands were shown in the green belt. By a Notification dated 8.12.1982, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Works and Housing, the Central Government in exercise of its power under sub-section (2) of Section 11 A modified the master plan for Delhi. The modifications made were as under:

"(i) The land of an area measuring 21.043 hects. (52 acres) located near Narela Town and situated on the west of Railway line to Ambala is changed from `Agricultural Green Belt to `Commercial (Warehousing and storage depots)

(ii) The land use of an area measuring about 21.043 hects. (52 acres) located near Village Ghevra and situated on the North of Railway line to Rohtak is changed from Agricultural Green Belt to Commercial (Warehousing and storage depots )".

4. On 2.6.1983, a notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, whereby the lands for certain parcels situated within the said area were sought to be acquired for the public purpose of construction of godowns for the Food Corporation of India. This was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act made on 22.7.1983. Further proceedings under the Act ensued and on 5.9.1983, the Land Acquisition Collector made an award in each of the cases. The Collector categorized the lands falling for acquisition into three blocks, namely, A , B and C . He awarded a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- per bigha for land in Block A , Rs. 8,000/- per bigha for land in Block B and Rs. 5,000/- per bigha for land in block C . He also awarded compensation for wells, trees and structures. Not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Collector, the claimants moved for references under Section 18 of the Act. The Reference Court by its judgment dated 12.3.1999 enhanced the market value of the acquired lands to a uniform rate of Rs. 36,300/- per bigha as on the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. It also granted other reliefs available under the Act.

5. The claimants filed Regular First Appeals under Section 54 of the Act questioning the correctness of the judgment rendered by the Reference Court. The High Court assessed the market value of the lands of the claimants at Rs. 82,255/- per bigha. It also directed solatium @ 30% on the enhanced amount of compensation and interest @ 90% per annum for a period of one year from the date of Collector taking possession and thereafter @ 15% per annum till payment of compensation and on additional amount @ 12% on the market value from the date of notification till the possession. It was also directed that if interest was held payable on solatium in the case pending before the Supreme Court, such interest will be paid to the claimants.

6. In civil appeals Nos. 5708/2002 and 5709/2002, the claimants-appellants have impugned the judgment of the High Court while the Union of India is in appeal in Civil appeal Nos. 8591-8592/2003 and civil appeals arising out of SLP Nos. 21335/2002, 21342/2002, 21343/2002, 23385/2002, 1632/2003, and 12968/2003.

7. In only question argued before us was the assessment of the market value of the acquired lands as on the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. No other issue was canva

Click Here to Read the rest of this document