2005 Supreme(SC) 1159

2005(7) Supreme 9
Supreme Court of India
(From Delhi High Court)
Ashok Bhan & S.B. Sinha, JJ.
Ranvir Singh & Anr. —Appellants
versus
Union of India —Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1428 of 2004
With
Civil Appeal No. 4117 of 2003
Civil Appeal Nos. 1429-1435 of 2004
Civil Appeal Nos. 2747-2751 of 2004
Civil Appeal Nos. 2935, 2947-2957 of 2004
Civil Appeal Nos. 3075-3076, 3079, 3083-3094 of 2004
Civil Appeal Nos. 3170-3182 of 2004
Civil Appeal Nos. 3186-3357 of 2004
Civil Appeal Nos. 3359-3369 of 2004
Civil Appeal Nos. 3371-3382 of 2004
Civil Appeal Nos. 3384-3394 of 2004
Civil Appeal Nos. 3396-3402 of 2004
Civil Appeal Nos. 3426-3438 of 2004
Civil Appeal Nos. 3443-3454 of 2004
Civil Appeal No. 3463 of 2004
Civil Appeal Nos. 4908, 7759-62, 7765-7795 of 2004
And
Civil Appeal Nos. 5546-5551, 5553-54, 5557-60 and 5562 of 2005
[@ SLP (C) Nos. 12073, 12075, 16318-20, 19846, 19848, 19851-52, 19854, 5558, 22411 and 23819 of 2004]
And
Civil Appeal No. 5561 of 2005
[@ SLP (C) No. 17837 of 2005]
Decided on 7-9-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : R. Mohan, Additional Solicitor General, R.F. Nariman, R. Venkataramani, Uday U. Lalit, Sr. Advocates, V.G. Pragasam, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, R. Nedumaran, Thaman Jayam, M.A. Chinnaswami, V. Krishnamoorthy, Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, Mrs. Rekha Pandey, M.P.S. Tomar, Mrs. Kiran Bhardwaj, Angand, Sanjay Poddar, D.S. Mahra, Avatar Singh Rawat, Anil Nag, Aditya Sharma, S.N. Singh, K.S. Rana, Mrs. Sunita Sharma, Vishnu B. Saharya, Viresh B. Saharya, Balraj Dewan, M.S. Panwar, Naresh Kaushik, Mrs. Lalitha Kaushik, Vipin Gogia, Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, Rana Ranjit Singh, Chittaranjan Panda, Sanjay Sharawat, Nitin Bhardwaj, Prakash Shrivastava, S.K. Raut, K.K. Gupta, Annam D.N. Rao, M.P. Shorawala, Ambrish Kumar, Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Bijender Singh, M. Qamaruddin, Mrs. M. Qamaruddin, Ambar Qamaruddin, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advocates.

Important point
The market value of fully developed land cannot be compared with wholly underdeveloped land although they may be adjoining or situated at a little distance. For determining the market value, the nature of the land plays an important role.

Headnote:(i) Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Sections 4, 18 and 23—Notifications u/s 4(1) issued in year 1981 for acquisition of various blocks of land situated in village Rithala for planned development of Delhi—Four awards passed—LAO divided the acquired lands in two blocks and awarded compensation—Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation—Appeals—High Court awarded compensation relying on a brochure issued by Delhi Development Authority in respect of Rohini as also the circular letters issued by Union of India fixing value of land for the purpose of computing stamp duty—High Court did not place any reliance upon the sale instances produced solely on ground that neither vendors nor vendees thereof had been examined as witnesses—Whether judgment of the High Court awarding compensation amount is sustainable—(No) —Market value of fully developed land in Rohini cannot be compared with wholly undeveloped land.

       Held : Before, however, we advert to the rival contentions raised by the parties in this behalf, it may be observed that the Delhi Development Authority was not a party before the High Court and an application was filed only before this Court for impleading it as a party. The Delhi Development Authority, thus, got no opportunity to raise any contention as to why the sale brochure should not be considered to be a determinative criterion for the purpose of fixation of market value of the lands in question. We may, furthermore, notice that a housing scheme at Rohini was floated by the Delhi Development Authority. The lands at Rohini were agricultural in nature. They were acquired in the year 1961. It became a residential area at the time of issuance of the notification in question issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The approximate population of Rohini was 8,50,000. There were work centres. Major facilities like health, education, social and cultural were thence available. (Para 27)

       The High Court without having regard to different sizes and different categories of land separately took into consideration the value of 48 sq. mts. of land at the rate of Rs. 150/- per sq. mtr. It, keeping in view of the fact that the Delhi Development Authority sought to create lease-hold right whereas upon acquisition of land a free-hold right would be created, multiplied the said figure by two and arrived at a conclusion that the market value of 1 sq. mtr. of land at Rohini would be Rs. 300/-. The mean figure thereof was taken at Rs. 200/- per sq. mts. as wholesale price of free-hold plots in a developed condition. From the said Rs. 200/-, 60 had been deducted towards costs of development and considering the large extent of land, the retail market price was worked out at Rs. 80/- per sq. mtr. While adopting the said method, in our opinion, the High Court committed manifest errors. The market value of fully developed land cannot be compared with wholly underdeveloped land although they may be adjoining or situated at a little distance. For determining the market value, it is trite, the nature of the land plays an important role. (Paras 28 and 29)

       The High Court did not consider any relevant criteria on the basis whereof it could come to the conclusion that the value of the freehold lands would be double of the value of the leasehold lands. The fact that in terms of the brochure the leasehold was to be a perpetual one and the ground rent payable therefor was absolutely nominal being Re. 1/- per plot per annum for the first five years and thereafter at the rate 2 1/2 of the total amount of the premium, which was to be enhanced only after every 30 years, was a relevant factor which should have been taken into consideration for arriving at a finding in that behalf. It is worth noting that the terms and conditions were set out for sale by the Delhi Development Authority on behalf of the President of India of perpetual lease-hold rights in the residential plots under the Rohini Scheme. A large amount of money was spent for development of Rohini over a period of 20 years. A large area has been earmarked for schools, hospitals, community halls, etc. Many other advantages were also provided. In view it may be perceived that the scheme floated by the D.D.A. may not be viable and as such the possibility of reduction of the rate at a future date could not be ruled out. (Paras 31 and 32)

       Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained and accordingly the same are set aside. The matters are remitted to the High Court for consideration of the matter afresh. The High Court shall proceed to determine the market value of the acquired land upon taking into consideration the materials on record and all other relevant factors necessary for determining the market value of the lands in question. (Para 41)

       (ii) Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Sections 4 and 23—Compensation claim—Relevant criteria for determining market value—Sale deeds pertaining to portion of lands which are subject to acquisition would be the most relevant piece of evidence for assessing market value of acquired lands—For determining the market value, even market conditions prevailing as on the date of notification are relevant—Burden of proof that acquired land and the land covered by sale transaction bear similar or same potentialities or advantageous features is on claimant—Sale price in respect of a small piece of land cannot be the basis for determination of a market value of a large stretch of land—A judgment or award determining the amount of compensation is not conclusive—It would merely be a piece of evidence—There cannot be any fixed criteria for determining the increase in the value of land at a fixed rate. (Paras 33 to 39)

       (iii) Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 51A—Evidence Act, 1872—Compensation claim—Xerox copies of deeds of sale produced by parties—Whether admissible in evidence—(Yes)—What would be their evidentiary value may ultimately fall for consideration by the Court.

       Held : The provisions of the Indian Evidence Act postulate that secondary evidence can be led by the parties in the event primary evidence is not available. In a case of this nature, however, the claimant-respondents may be aware of the transactions. Indisputably, they did not raise any objection as regard admissibility of the said deeds of sale. The xerox copy of the deeds of sale were marked exhibits without any objection having been taken by the Respondents herein. Such an objection cannot, therefore, be taken for the first time before this Court. What would be their evidentiary value may ultimately fall for consideration by the Court but the said deeds of sale cannot be rejected only on the ground that only Xerox copies thereof had been brought on records. The onus to prove the market value as obtaining on the date of notification was on the claimants. It was for them to adduce evidence to prove their claims by bringing sufficient and cogent materials on record so as to enable the court to determine the market value of the acquired land as on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. If the claimants themselves filed Xerox copies of the deeds of sale or failed to examine any witness to prove the relevant factors for determining the market value of the land acquired with reference to the said sale instances, they cannot now be permitted to resile therefrom and contend that the said documents should be totally ignored. (Para 26)