Back
1991 Supreme(Del) 241
High Court Of Delhi
KESHO DASS - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL 311 of 1974
Decided On : 04/11/1991
NEMO K.PARASARAN, RAJIV SHARMA
Headnote:LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - Sections 4 & 6 — Acquisition of Land — Land falling in two villages — Pucca metalled road constructed — Land surrounded by residential Colonies — Market value of the land to be determined beeping in view the potentiality of Land — Market value fixed at Rs. 8064/- Per Bigba in respect of entire land — Difference of more than three years between Notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 — Six Per cent interest awarded on Market value of Land.
HELD:
It is not disputed that the entire land has been acquired for planned development of Delhi and that there has been no distinction made by the Collector as also by the Addl. District Judge in awarding compensation in respect of various portions of the land depending upon their respective block classification. In our judgment in the case of Kesho Das v. Union of India : R.F.A. No. 71/79 dated 9th April 1991, we have already held that the potential market value of the land should be determined keeping in view the potentiality of the land on such materials as are a callable on record, such as, neighborhood, likelihood of removal of restrictions on the use of land, removal of restrictions on the use of land in the immediate vicinity etc. One additional factor in the present case is that the appellant had construed a puce metalled road leading from Patpar Ganj road to the land in question with a view to colonies it and had in fact entered into some agreements for sale of various plots of land for putting up residential buildings. In addition to this, another admitted fact which cannot be lost sight off, is that the land in question is surrounded on all sides by developed authorised and unauthorised residential colonies.
As such the land cannot be said to be without potential for being put to residential use. In the light of such factors, we do not feel inclined to uphold the classification of the various adjoining plots of land into various blocks in the same village. In our aforesaid decision also, we had held "no distinction be observed between one plot of land and another" as has been done in the present case by the Land Aquisition Collector and by the Addl. District Judge.
In these circumstances, we do not find any justification for fixing any value other than what has bean fixed by us for land falling in village Khureji Khas, i.e., Rs. 8064/- per bigha and we hereby fix the same market value for the land falling in village Mandoli Fazalpur without observing any distinction between various categories and blocks of land and grant compensation to the appellant in respect of his entire land by fixing the market value thereof at Rs. 8064/- per bigha. The appellant will also be entitled to solarium at the rate of 15% of the said value of the land and interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the enhanced compensation from the date of dispossession till the date of payment.
As there is a difference of more than three years between the Notification under Section 4 (November 13, 1959) and declaration under Section 6 (18th March 1966) of the Act the appellant shall also be entitled to 6 per cent per annum interest on the market value of the lard under Section 4(3) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment & Validation) Act, 1957 provided there is no overlapping of payment of interest under Section 28 of the Act and Section 4(3) of the said Act. The appellants shall also be entitled to proportionate costs.
( 1 ) THIS appeal was beard along with various other appeals relating to acquisition of land in village Mandoli Fazalpur. The Notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was published on 13th November 1959 for acquiring the land for public purpose, i. e , Planned Development of Delhi, while declaration under Section 6 was published on 18th March 1966.
( 2 ). We find that the appellant owned approximately mare than 76 bighas of land. Out of which 23 bighas and 16 biswas fell in village Khureji Khas while the other part of his field measuring approximately 53 bighas fell in village Mandoli Fazalpur. Except for the fact that a part of his land happens to fall in one village, while the other part falls in the adjoining village, there is no other distinction of difference in the land which fell into one filed from the other which fell into another. While dealing with the appeals pertaining to the acquistion of land in village Khureji Khas, we had gone into various aspects, like, nature of land, its market value and the factors which would be kept in mind while determining the market value of the land.
( 3 ). Unfortunately no assistance was forthcoming on behalf of Union of India inspite of our having awaited for Union of India s representation on the first date of hearing, i. e. on 5th April 1991 and thereafter we proceeded to hear the appellant on 8th April 1991. As such, we had no option but to rely upon the assistance rendered by the counsel for the appellant in this case and various other advocates who appeared in the appeals relating to acquisition of land in the same village.
( 4 ). The appellant feeling aggrieved by the value fixed by the Addl District Judge (Shri J D. Jain, as he then was) has come up in appeal seeking enhancement at different rates for different parts of his land It is not disputed that the entire land has been acquired for planned development of Delhi and that there has been no distinction made by the Collector as also by the Addl. District Judge in awarding compensation in respect of various portions of the land depending upon their respective block classification In our judgment in the case of Kesho Das v. Union of India : R. FA. No. 71/79 dated 9th April 1991, we have already held that the potential market value of the land should be determined beeping in view the potentially of the land on such materials as are available on record, such as, neighbourhood, liklihood of removal of restrictions on (he use of land. removal of restrictions on the use of land in the immediate vicinity etc One additional factor in the present case is that the appellant had construed a pucca metalled road leading from Patpar Ganj road to the land in question with a view to colonise it and had in fact entered into some agreements for sale of various plots of land for putting up residential buildings. In addition to this. another admitted fact which cannot be lost sight off, is that the land in question is surrounded on all sides by developed authorised and unauthorised residential colonies.
( 5 ). As such the land cannot be said to be without potential for being put to residential use. In the light of such factors, we do not feel inclined to upbold the classification of the various adjoining plots of land into various blocks in the same village. In our aforesaid decision also, we had held "no distinction be observed between one plot of land and another" as has been done in the present case by the Land Acquisition Collector and by the Additional District Judge.
( 6 ). In respect of village Khureji Khas, we had after due consideration accepted the value fixed by Shri N. C. Kochbar, Additional District Judge (as he then was) of Rs. 8. 00 per sq. yard, i. e. , 8064. 00 per bigha. As already stated, the land of village Khureji Khas is adjoining the land in question and except for the demracation of land on papers where by one part there of falls in village Khureji khas an
