Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
16. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent in Civil Appeal No.4204 of 2004 would furthermore draw our attention to the proceeding sheet dated 24.4.2006 to contend that despite orders passed by this Court, legal heirs of the c respondents having not been brought to the record, the appeal must be held to have abated.
17. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent in Civil Appeal No.2373 of 2006 would contend that village Chilla Saroda Khader being the subject matter of notification D dated 21.7.1987, this Court may grant suitable enhancement.
18. Acluster of villages were sought to be acquired for the j same purpose, namely, development of Delhi. The lands in question were basically agricultural lands. However, having E regard to the fact that the Delhi Development Authority had sought to acquire the lands in phases beginning from 1976, it is possible that in the villages in question, some building activities had been going on. y
19. On legal principle, there cannot be any doubt or dispute F that when the nature of land sought to be acquired is different, the amount of compensation would be different keeping in view several factors, namely, the date of notification, the class of land sought to be acquired whether fully irrigated, number of annual crops or as to whether it was a land where no cultivation or G vegetation is done. .:;f-
20. By reason of the notification a large number of persons were affected. Most of them, however, were satisfied with the amount of compensation received by them. Only 103 persons H objected to the,;lmount of compensation granted in their favour UNION OF INDIA v. HARPAT SINGH & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.] -t and filed claim petition pursuant to the notices issued to them under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act. Only five of the aforementioned 103 claimants, namely, Ram Lal Dua, Shyam Parshad Mandal, Dharambir, Naresh Kumar Gupta and Smt. Praful Chandra had filed deeds of sale. Compensation was claimed ranging from Rs.25/- to Rs.1,000/- per square yard. The rate at which lands were sold in terms of the deeds of sale relied upon by some of the claimants in support of their claims ranged from Rs.3376/- to Rs.9970/- per bigha. The transactions in respect of ~II those lands indisputably were entered into after the aforementioned notification. However, keeping in view the c facts and circumstances of this case and the materials brought on record, the Land Acquisition Collector opined that amount of compensation should be determined at the rate of Rs.8,000/ – per bigha apart from the other amount payable to the claimants under the statute. The learned reference court did not interfere with the said award, stating : …. "All the six sale-deeds produced on record go to show that these are of different dates and the land in the same village was sold at Rs.8,000/- per bigha as is apparent from the judgment given by Shri Sahni, para 36 (Ex.R-7) and this is an indisputable fact that the said sales pertain to the almost same period."
21. It is in the aforementioned backdrop of events, the impugned judgments of the High Court may be considered. Indisputably, even in Ratan Lal whereupon reliance has been placed by the High Court, compensation at the rate of Rs.76.55 paise had been awarded by the reference court. It is only the High Court which had interfered therewith and determined the fair market value at Rs.345 per square yard. Contention of the learned counsel that Ratan Lal has attained finality and no appeal had been preferred thereagainst does not appear to be correct. Ratan Lal also came 1:.1p for consideration before this Court and disposed of along with Bali Ram Sharma (supra).
22. Mr. Singh conce'cled that we may follow Karan Singh A and Bali Ram Sharma. In view of Karan Singh and Bali Ram Sharma, we must proceed on the basis that the minimum amount of compensation which must be paid should be determined at Rs. 76.55 p. per square yard. Lands situated in village Chilla Saroda Bangar and village Chilla Saroda Khader, B however, appeared to be situated nearer Delhi as compared to Kondli, Gharoli and Dallupura.
23. Although it may be true that the villages in question are nearer Delhi as compared to Kondli, Gharoli and Dallupura but, as noticed hereinbefore, the High Court proceeded to C determine the amount of compensation not on the basis of the development work carried out in Delhi but in NOIDA as those_ three villages are closer to NOIDA. The High Court had taken into consideration the development carried out in NOIDA, stating: "As pe~ the evidence on -record, village Chilla-Saroda• Bangar, as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act was contiguous to the revenue estate of village Nayabans, which is in NOIDA and now comprises of Sector Nos. 14, 15 and 15A on one side and MayurVihar Samachar Apartments, Galaxo Apartments, Parvana Apartments; Indian Institute of Medical Sciences Apartments towards Northern side. These colonies had already come into existence prior to 1980. All development work had been completed including laying of the roads. Village Dallupura was adjoining the revenue . estate of Chilla Saroda Bangar towards North East. Revenue estate of Jhilmil Tahirpur wherein were located industrial and residential areas was in close proximity towards North Western side with all civic amenities like -electricity, road, transport, sewage, telephone and school available within revenue estate of Chilla Saroda Bangar as on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. This topography of village Chilla Saroda Bangar as is available on the file can also be co-related with the -i– UNION OF INDIA v. HARPAT SINGH & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.] Eicher map wherein revenue estate of Chilla Saroda Bangar is shown located just touching Yamuna Marginal Band Road, namely, Najafgarh Road."
24. The fact that the lands acquired were capable of being developed cannot be disputed. But, as indicated hereinbefore, the Division Bench of the High Court proceeded on the basis that the colonies at NOIDA were already developed, the development having commenced prior to 1980. The High Court did not stop there. It proceeded on the basis that the lands situated in village Dallupura are similar to the lands in question c in respect whereof only in Ratan Lal the fair market value was assessed at Rs.345/- per square yard in terms of a judgment dated 24.8.2001 since reported in [(2001) 94 DLT 378]. The High Court, in paragraph 18 of its judgment, found no difference in the location, situation, potentiality, advantage attached and other relevant factors between the lands in question and those t. acquired in village Dallupura and furthermore opined that there was no material or evidence brought on record even to contradict the stand of the appellant as regards benefits of the lands situated in village Chilla Saroda Bangar and the lands of village Dallupura but proceeded to ignore its own judgment in Karan Singh and Bali Ram Sharma wherefor no reason was assigned. t
25. We, however, cannot ignore the fact that some construction activities l1ad already started in the village in question by the DOA itself. Some amenities, although the village might not have been fully developed but road, electricity, water, sewerage were there, whereas the lands situated in Kondli and those others were agricultural lands. We, therefore, are of the opinion that keeping in view its proximity to Delhi, and as the appellant itself had conceded that the minimum compensation be calculated at the rate of Rs.76.55 per sq. yard, that the interest of justice shall be subserved if the market value is raised to 10% thereover. Correspondingly, the other statutory benefits including interest must be awarded.
26. For the aforementioned purpose, we have also taken t- into consideration that appeals were otherwise barred by limitation and that is one of the factors, we must place on record, had weighed with us for determining the said amount.
27. In Civil Appeal No.2371 and 2374 of 2006 where notification was issued on 9 .4 .1971, 10% of the aforementioned . amount shall be deducted whereas in respect of CA No.2373 of 2006 where notification has been issued on 21.7.1987, –t– increase @ 10% per year shall be granted in preparing the final c award.
28. So far as CA No.4204 of 2006 is concerned, as order dated 24.4.2006 had not been complied with, the legal heirs of the original respondent having not been brought on record, the said appeal must be held to have abated and is dismissed D accordingly.
29. All the appeals except C.A. No. 4204 of 2006 are allowed in part on the above terms, i.e., paragraph 26, 28 and 29. In the facts and circumstances of this case, however, there E shall be no order as to costs. R.P. Appeals disposed of.