2009 Supreme(SC) 1441

2009(6) Supreme 429
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.V. Raveendran and B. Sudershan Reddy, JJ.
Lal Chand — Appellant
versus
Union of India & Another — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4945 of 2006
with
C.A. Nos. 4946 to 4977, 5134, 5135, 5136, 5351 and 5890 of 2006
with
C.A. Nos. 23 to 42, 465, 603, 886 to 891, 1228 to 1233, 1295, 1300 to 1311, 1976 to 1984, 2461, 2679, 2721, 2722, 2723, 3990 and 4693 of 2007
Decided on : 12-08-2009

IMPORTANT POINT
1. Allotment rates of plots adopted by Development Authorities like DDA cannot form the basis for award of compensation for acquisition of undeveloped lands.
2. The estimation of market value by statutorily constituted expert committees, as expert evidence can form the basis for determining the market value in land acquisition cases, as a relevant piece of evidence.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Acquisition of lands situated at village Rithala on the outskirts of Delhi, for construction of a supplementary drain; construction of sewage treatment plant; re-modelling of Nangloi drain; and for planned development of Delhi – The said four acquisitions were initiated under notifications issued under section 4(1) of Act, 1894 – High Court determined market value of lands as Rs.25,000/- per bigha – Not being satisfied with the amount awarded the appellants filed appeals on plea that compensation awarded was low and it ought to have been higher – In view of facts and circumstances of case compensation increased in regard to acquisition dated 31.12.1981 from Rs.27000/- to Rs.30,500/- per bigha. and in regard to the acquisition dated 13.2.1981, 20.2.1981 and 13.3.1981 from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.28,000/- per bigha. –Cross objections by DDA seeking reduction of the compensation were rejected – Appeals by claimants partly allowed. (Paras 37 to 38)

        Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Determination of market value in regard to lands situated at village Rithala – Whether DDA brochure is relevant evidence? – Held DDA brochure (Ex.X1) dated 9.2.1981 was an invitation seeking applications from members of public for allotment of plots on lease basis under Rohini Residential Housing Scheme – Contention of Appellants that Rs.150/ – per sq. m. which was the average of said provisional rates, should be taken as indicative of the ruling market price – Held that such allotment rates of plots adopted by Development Authorities like DDA could not form basis for award of compensation for acquisition of undeveloped lands for several reasons – Firstly market value had to be determined with reference to large tracts of undeveloped agricultural lands in a rural area, whereas the allotment rates of development authorities were with reference to small plots in a developed lay out falling within Urbana – Secondly DDA and other statutory authorities adopt different rates for plots in the same area with reference to the economic capacity of the buyer, making it difficult to ascertain the real market value, whereas market value determination for acquisitions is uniform and does not depend upon the economic status of the land loser. (Para 6, 7)

        Land Acquisition Act,1894 – Determination of market value in regard to lands situated at village Rithala – Whether the circle rates/guideline value rates could be relied upon to determine the market value? – Appellant relied upon the notification dated 21.1.1981 issued by the Land Division of Government of India, Ministry of Works and Housing, notifying the Schedule of Market Rates of land in different parts of Delhi and various outlying areas – showing the minimum rates Rs.400/- per sq. yard for residential and Rs.800/- sq. yard for non-residential plots – Held instantly there was nothing to show circle rates had been determined by any statutorily appointed committee by adopting scientific basis – Hence, they would not be of any assistance for determining the market value – Again ,they did not purport to be the market value for lands in rural areas on the outskirts of Delhi, nor the market values relating to Rithala village – Hence circle rates relating to urban/city areas in Delhi held wholly irrelevant. (Paras 12 to 17)

        Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Determination of market value in regard to lands situated at village Rithala – Whether the High Court was justified in rejecting sale deeds (Ex.A-2 to A-3 and A-10 to A-13 and Ex.R3 to R7) from consideration? – The existence of several other sale deeds showing a much higher value and the fact that the Land Acquisition Collector chose to award a higher rate in regard to some of the acquired lands, led to an inevitable inference that Ex.R3 to R7 were either undervalued or were distress sales – Whatever be the reason, they were liable to be excluded from consideration – The sale transactions under Ex. A1 to A3 and A10 to A13 related to plots used for residential or other non-agricultural purposes – Though these sale deeds described the lands sold as agricultural lands, having regard to the prevailing land reforms laws, the size of the plots showed that they were not used for agricultural purposes – Reasons assigned by the High Court for rejecting Ex. A2,3, A10 to A13 and Ex R3 to R7 were not sound. (Paras 22 to 25)

       Facts of the Case :

        Issue in consideration in present appeals related to determination of market value in regard to lands situated at village Rithala on the outskirts of Delhi, acquired for (i) construction of a supplementary drain; (ii) construction of sewage treatment plant; (iii) re-modelling of Nangloi drain; and (iv) planned development of Delhi. The said four acquisitions were initiated under notifications dated 13.2.1981, 20.2.1981 13.3.1981 and 31.12.1981 issued under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

       Findings of the Court :

        High Court had determined market value of lands as Rs.25,000/- per bigha. Not being satisfied with the amount awarded the appellants filed appeals on plea that compensation awarded was low and it ought to have been higher. In view of facts and circumstances of case compensation was increased in regard to acquisition dated 31.12.1981 from Rs.27000/- to Rs.30,500/- per bigha. and in regard to the acquisition dated 13.2.1981, 20.2.1981 and 13.3.1981 from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.28,000/- per bigha. Cross objections by DDA seeking reduction of the compensation were rejected. Appeals by claimants partly allowed.

       Result : Ordered accordingly.